Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: easymo on June 10, 2002, 11:19:41 PM
-
The thread about Jose, has people talking about whether it can go boom or not. I am more interested in the fact that they pulled a native born American off of the street and locked him up indefinitely,and this is legal.
If he joined a foreign Army. Fine. He gave up his citizenship. And his rights. But, where is the due process, to determine if he did in fact join one. Apparently they can pull anyone in. toejamcan their rights. All they have to say is he joined a foreign army. This isn't Walker. He wasn't found on a battlefield. If they can do it to him. They can do it to any of us. All they have to do is make up some story about a meeting.
Can anyone explain the law that allows them to do this?
Jr. has made the worst attack on the Constitution, since Roseavelt threw Japanese Americans into camps. I think its time to start talking impeachment.
-
Can you please post a link to that other thread you are refering to?
-
The dirty bomber thread
-
Easymo, I started to post exactly that same sentiment earlier today but got too bzy. Appearently the Justice Department didn't have enough evidence to charge Jose so he was turned over to the Dept. Of Defense where he can be held indefinately and then tried by a panel of military officers in SECRET PROCEEDINGS where he can possibly be sentanced to death by firing squad or by hanging. All this for an American citizen arrested on American soil.
Don't blame GW entirely for this one, BTW. Our Senate was falling all over itself to suspend part of their powers to the Executive branch on 9-12. I've been preaching for months now about the willingness of so many to give up our rights in the wake of 9-11, but realize that among those rights you are so willing to give up is your right to a speedy trial, right to a jury of your peers and right to compent legal council. Why is anyone surprised by this? I expect lots more people getting locked up indefinately in the name of National Security.
-
No kidding... Zacarias Moussaoui gets a trial and Padilla does not.
Makes no sense...:(
-
But whoevers advising him is a cunning bastard.
The use of military tribunals will allow them to make sure we never get the complete story of 9/11...or the events leading up to it.
Jr. has made the worst attack on the Constitution, since Roseavelt threw Japanese Americans into camps. I think its time to start talking impeachment.
I fully agree, a few more years of Bush could cause more damage to the American way of life than terrorists could hope to do.
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent.
Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers.
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
-
":The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
That quote kind of sizes up my feelings on the matter. I don't belive there is anything sinister in what the Bush administration is doing. I belive that Jr. is quite sincere in trying to protect the American people. The problem is, he is trying to Forrest Gump his way through a very complex problem. Long after he is taken out, by a pretzel, or a carrot stick, or something. We will have to live with the mess he made. I am no lawyer (thank god) But my limited understanding is that much of the way the law works is based on precedent. Human nature being what it is. If a judge somewhere makes a decision on something. Through the following years, rather than actually do something, other judges will just differ to the first judge's decision. What Jr. admin. is doing sets a very scary precedent.
BTW. As much as it pains me to agree with sandman about anything. I have to admit what he posted is the first thing that went through my mind.
-
"Long after he is taken out, by a pretzel, or a carrot stick, or something"
:D :D :D :D
*passes out laughing*
-
and after jose blows somthing up and kills many people , you 'civil rights" people will say "WHY DIDN'T THE FBI DOOOO SOMETHING, THEY KNEW ABOUT HIM" whine whine
-
Originally posted by john9001
and after jose blows somthing up and kills many people , you 'civil rights" people will say "WHY DIDN'T THE FBI DOOOO SOMETHING, THEY KNEW ABOUT HIM" whine whine
You're wrong.
-
John. If they have such damning evidence, why don't they just present it in an open court? The American people are NOT in a lenient mood right now. It would take almost nothing to convince a court that he joined a foreign army.
You don't know the guy. All you know about him is what the government has told the newsweinies. Your ready to hang him with that? We could all be in deep doo doo.
-
Did have his al queda card in his wallet?
They picked him up with what appears to be nothing but circumstantial evidence. They dont even have enough to take to a grand jury. Thats why the "foreign agent" crap.
This is just a smoke screen used to get attention off how incompetent the government looked wih all these revelations that show this xx agency knew xx prior to 9/11.
"Wow they caught a bomber they must be working together now, wtfg GWB."
BS
This guy suposedly killed 2 people when he was 14 they couldnt of found a guy people could careless about more . They'll mess around for a while (maybe years) until some judge says let umm go. Then you'll hear how messed up our justice system is because some "liberal" judge lets him go.
The guy was arrested may 8th why leak this now? You sheep all bah in unison
BAAAAAHd man
-
Originally posted by easymo
":The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
That quote kind of sizes up my feelings on the matter. I don't belive there is anything sinister in what the Bush administration is doing. I belive that Jr. is quite sincere in trying to protect the American people. The problem is, he is trying to Forrest Gump his way through a very complex problem. Long after he is taken out, by a pretzel, or a carrot stick, or something. We will have to live with the mess he made. I am no lawyer (thank god) But my limited understanding is that much of the way the law works is based on precedent. Human nature being what it is. If a judge somewhere makes a decision on something. Through the following years, rather than actually do something, other judges will just differ to the first judge's decision. What Jr. admin. is doing sets a very scary precedent.
BTW. As much as it pains me to agree with sandman about anything. I have to admit what he posted is the first thing that went through my mind.
Not setting a precedent. Jr. admin is following in Roosevelt's footsteps during WW11.
Civil liberties have been limited during war time, and they've been restored afterwards. Could be martial law is otw for the US. I don't want it to be like that. Your and my rights are guanteed much more if this doesn't happen.
So, I must disagree with the way this is being presented as a permanent loss of civil rights.
Les
-
Im just glad people like you are not in power.
You cling to your percieved rights like a drowning man to a straw.
Just for arguments sake, lets suppose it is true. Suppose the guy was planning to detonate a dirty bomb in Washington DC. If he would have succeded, you can write off DC as a place for human beings for the next couple of thousands of years (or hundreds of thousands of years, depending on what kind of radioactive material he would have used), you can also say hello to thousands of deaths immideately, another tens of thousands within the next 6 months, and add a couple of hundreds of thousands of deaths from various diseases in the years ahead.
What is the first thing you do? Start squeaking over the terrorists rights.
You are all diddlying idiots. A war against terroristm cannot be won by conventional methods, realize that.
Remember your reaction when the next Al Queida cell manage to set of their dirty bomb in some other city.
-
Originally posted by easymo
John. If they have such damning evidence, why don't they just present it in an open court? The American people are NOT in a lenient mood right now. It would take almost nothing to convince a court that he joined a foreign army.
But perhaps the nature of the evidence is such that it is best kept out of the public light?
Suppose the evidence in this case is a couple of phonecalls, as well as a "secret meeting" between the terrorist and OBL (or whoever). If the Government would present these evidence in court, it would at the same time tell Al Queida "Yes, we can listen to your phonecalls, and yes, one of the guys in that secret meeting is one of our agents".
But Al Queida surely knows this already, that their phones are tapped and that we have spies inside their ranks. I hear you whine? They might suspect it, but they cant be sure. Also they might think that some of their lines of communication is safe. Most probably the information leading up to the arrest of this terrorist came from another intelligence agency (Mossad), and most probably they would never share any information again if one of their agents was blown in a US trial just to satisfy the bill of rights-hysterics in the US.
The less we know about the war on terrorism the better. Because what we know, the terrorists also know.
-
The US Constitution, Article 2, is where the President derives his power to convene a military tribunal.
-
they arent convening a military tribunal.
they are doing nothing.
They declared him an enemy and can hold him until the "war" is over. No trial, no lawyer nothing.
Absent the $10k they found on him theres really nothing (as it is being reported) that could be used to indict him criminally.
The government says he belonged to al quedia therefore his an enemy soldier, now a prisoner of war.
-
"What is the first thing you do? Start squeaking over the terrorists rights.
You are all diddlying idiots."
For someone who *claims* to be an attorney you construct some poor arguements.
Maybe in your pissant l'il country the law is different, but the US Constitution gives citizens specific legal rights, it's the cornerstone of our legal system.
The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution states:
"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"
What this ultimately means is that, if charged with a crime, we are considered innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution, beyond all reasonable doubt.
He's a citizen, which gives him the right to a fair trial before his peers, if found guilty he will be punished....
Why do you care anyway, it's OUR laws that Bush and his thugs are trampling.
Pssst, don't look in the mirror, you might see a fediddleing idiot.
-
they arent convening a military tribunal.
Still, the President derives his power to treat this case, in this manner, from the United States Constitution, Article 2.
I think Hortlund makes some good points. There is a critical point where you have to give up certain aspects of a totally open society to effectively deal with things like this. I think we have arrived.
-
Originally posted by weazel
"What is the first thing you do? Start squeaking over the terrorists rights.
You are all diddlying idiots."
For someone who *claims* to be an attorney you construct some poor arguements.
Maybe in your pissant l'il country the law is different, but the US Constitution gives citizens specific legal rights, it's the cornerstone of our legal system.
The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution states:
"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"
What this ultimately means is that, if charged with a crime, we are considered innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution, beyond all reasonable doubt.
He's a citizen, which gives him the right to a fair trial before his peers, if found guilty he will be punished....
Why do you care anyway, it's OUR laws that Bush and his thugs are trampling.
Pssst, don't look in the mirror, you might see a fediddleing idiot.
Oh great, now another one starts pulling random quotes from the law...gee, I havent seen this before.
Look pal, before we even begin this discussion...do you really think what is happening to that guy right now is illegal?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You are all diddlying idiots.
God knows over the past 14 years of my electronic communication (BBS, then GEnie, then the Internet) I've wanted to say that soooooo many times. But really, it's better to leave it unsaid, but prove it through reason.
-Sikboy
-
Prisoner of war? Wotan, you sound like you're with al queda on this. Why such a strong committment to the defense of a scumbag like Padilla, who yes, is a scumbag, only worse. Traitor perhaps, spy most likely. Why spring to the defense of Padilla so fast? Addressed to Sandman, Weasel and Easymo also.
Les
-
so when they come to your house and say your a member of al queda and lock ya in charlston naval brig isolated from your family, the general population and even from a lawyer and they tell ya your gonna be there till the "war on terrorism" is over remember "we've arrived"
This guys an obvious pos just from his past record but hes an american citizen and deserve a hearing and a lawyer.
I dont think in this country there should ever be a time "where we have arrived" at a point where we can tolerate giving the government the right without question to hold folks indefinately with out requiring to prove why.
Shoot aint we in a war against drugs. arent drug dealers, smugglers and manufacturere enemy soldiers in that war? Do you think we should just round folks up who we "believe" may be involved in it? arent drug user aiding the enemy.
Its a bunch of crap nonsense. GWB and crew needed to save face with all the crap that going in the news papers about the failure of intelligence. So they drag this guy out.
They knew who this guy is. they could followed him around and set him up to where he actually could have been charged with a real crime. This may have lead to more arrests.
-
oh toejam now i am a member of al queda......:eek:
Wotan, you sound like you're with al queda on this.
whatever, read a newspaper.
No one here is defending that pos. We arguing the government should not be given open ended authority to hold any citizen indefinately without a hearing and legal representation. Period.
:rolleyes:
-
That is amasing. The same people who claim that a curent president is an usurper or that the previous one was a criminal see no problem in givng him (whichever one) a power to "disappear" people on a whim.
Just grab an american on american soil without any evidence, accuse him of having a conversation with someone else and voila...
You guys, who ever said anything bad or wished any misfortune to any presient or government official - you should start worrying now.
Brave new world, here we come...
miko
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Prisoner of war? Wotan, you sound like you're with al queda on this. Why such a strong committment to the defense of a scumbag like Padilla, who yes, is a scumbag, only worse. Traitor perhaps, spy most likely. Why spring to the defense of Padilla so fast? Addressed to Sandman, Weasel and Easymo also.
Les
um... er... uh... Inocent until proven guilty? What evidence do they have that he was a spy/traitor? If they have enough evidence to prove that then surely it's enough to try him in civil court.
I don't know what scares me more, what the government is doing to his civil rights or the reaction I'm hearing from Americans. The talk radio show I heard coming to work really has me scared. People are ready to hang this guy for doing something that they have no way on Earth of knowing he did or didn't do. Just because the government says doesn't make it right.
-
From someone who has/does work with intelligence, some of you are talkin' out your prettythang. You don't have a clue what the gov. has on this terrorist.
Oh, and I bet they would get alot of information from this future intelligence source if he were held by the Justice Dept. Instant invocation of rights. You do know where the gov. got the info on this guy in the first place, right?
And its presumption of innocence, not innocent until proven guilty. TV cop shows ain't real folks.
-
Right on Udie!
"Oh great, now another one starts pulling random quotes from the law...gee, I havent seen this before.
Look pal, before we even begin this discussion...do you really think what is happening to that guy right now is illegal?"
Gee, after sticking a foot in your mouth, I would think you would know better than to do it again. ;)
There's nothing"random" about that quote, maybe you should read our Constitution when you get a break from chasing ambulances.
It may not be illegal, if it is I'm sure the thug Ashcroft will see that a loophole is found PDQ.
To deny a citizen due process under constitutional law sets a very bad precedent for the future....and illegal or not is just - wrong.
-
There is already a precedent weazel. It was in WWII.
-
Originally posted by Apache
From someone who has/does work with intelligence, some of you are talkin' out your prettythang. You don't have a clue what the gov. has on this terrorist.
Oh, and I bet they would get alot of information from this future intelligence source if he were held by the Justice Dept. Instant invocation of rights. You do know where the gov. got the info on this guy in the first place, right?
And its presumption of innocence, not innocent until proven guilty. TV cop shows ain't real folks.
Fine then. They should display this evidence in court.
Who knows? The next person they drag off just might be you.
-
dam those feds anyway, what are they trying to do PROTECT US?? How dare they!
:rolleyes:
"Paranoia big destroya ......."
Better safe than sorry guys.
-
Originally posted by weazel
Gee, after sticking a foot in your mouth, I would think you would know better than to do it again. ;)
There's nothing"random" about that quote, maybe you should read our Constitution when you get a break from chasing ambulances.
It may not be illegal, if it is I'm sure the thug Ashcroft will see that a loophole is found PDQ.
To deny a citizen due process under constitutional law sets a very bad precedent for the future....and illegal or not is just - wrong. [/B]
Oh, if you only knew how random your use of that quote is Weazel. Let me try to explain. I posted this to Nashwan a long time ago in a thread far far away. I'd say it applies to you too:
I'm not trying to be mean or patronizing or anything. I have tried to say that these things are really complex. I know people who have spend half their life pondering over these questions and still they cant say exactly what the law is in some cases. Most of these rules are open to interpretation, and I can understand how you feel that you have support by interpreting the law in one way or the other. But it is more complicated than that. You cant just open a lawbook and look at paragraph 1 where it says "It is forbidden to destroy property" and go "AHA, I'm right, here is the proof!", and then fail to keep reading down to paragraph 2 where it says "except in these circumstances …". This is pretty much exactly what you are doing right now. You just cant grab some quotes and paste it here as some kind of proof. You have to realize that it is more complicated than that.
So whenever you feel the urge to quote your constitution to prove a point the next time. Try to realize that just reading the constitution really wont get you that far. You'd better read all the supreme court verdicts from 17-something up to now too, and you'd better read all the other laws while youre at it too, as well as the supreme court verdicts regarding those too. THEN you can start talking.
NOW, if you want to express opinions instead, well thats fine.
-
Psst... listen up
It's the ones that don't make the media you have to be afraid of .... :eek:
The big bad gov can make anyone at anytime disappear. It aint new......
LOL
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Fine then. They should display this evidence in court.
Who knows? The next person they drag off just might be you.
Why should it be me? I've nothing to fear from the law. I'm not a terrorist nor have any afiliation with such. I abide by and uphold the law. Why should any that do fear being....the next?
-
Here we go again, another thread where Hortlund talks circles again and takes the stance that if the Gov says he did it, well then he did it and end of story.
#1: Does the Gov probably know more than their saying? Yea most likely.
#2: If he is in league with terrorists should he be let go clean w/o evidence? No one is saying that.
Holding a person for a limited time to gain a warrant happens all the time. In my State, police can hold you for 24 hours while they apply for a warrant before actually charging you. Most other states have similar laws.
The problem I have period, is that the Gov will hold this guy for months before ever presenting any evidence against him. Right after 9/11 we had a man in the local jail for 3 1/2 months held on no crime, but the Gov said he was foreign so he had to be held.
3 1/2 months...locked up with no crime, no evidence against him, not even being told why he was locked up. If this Jose is guilty of a crime then they should be presenting the evidence (Closed Grand Jury) not sitting on him for ever till they pin something on him.
There is the problem. Who says, ok this guy rights will be forfeited now. No matter how noble the intentions, leaving your guiding principals to the side, waving them off when you feel it's conveinent is the problem.
Ppl in America have become dumb to what ever the Government says is ok. I've served my military, worked as a Police Officer but frankly I dont' trust my Government fully. That's why their's checks and balances that are suppose to be in place. That's why we have all these dam court rules...etc. Once you start throwing them aside it just opens up the possibility of abuse and the abuse of the US Constitution is far more a threat than a physical attack upon it's borders.
-
WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
-
So basically everyone who is opposed to giving this guy the rights he deserves for being an American citizen and being arrested in America don't really know what the whole story is... just what the media has told you, and the media got all their info from big brotha.
A citizen would be arrested for breaking the law, you people cheer on the government when they do it. If they have the evidence to show he's an actual terrorist with ties to Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group- then they'd have no problem hauling him into court and getting an easy conviction... now would they? So what is REALLY going on here?
-SW
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Suppose the evidence in this case is a couple of phonecalls, as well as a "secret meeting" between the terrorist and OBL (or whoever). If the Government would present these evidence in court, it would at the same time tell Al Queida "Yes, we can listen to your phonecalls, and yes, one of the guys in that secret meeting is one of our agents".
Would this be the same agent that knows the location of OBL?
:rolleyes:
-
Not sure but I sure wish those big black helicopters would stop following me & what's that click on the phone line evertime I pick up the receiver, and who's the guy in the trench coat, hat and sunglasses who follows me everytime I walk out of the building ....
:)
-
That's not what I was going after Eagler. Try something more along the lines of... why is this guy being detained without a trial? Why are his rights being ignored? What damning evidence to they have that will guarantee this guy death by hanging/firingsquad/gettin' it in da butt in jail/etc.? We only know what's been told to us... and that could be the truth or a complete BS story... we know NOTHING compared to what the government knows or may not know or have completely fabricated. Just be careful when you pick up the pitchfork and rally behind Big G when the whole thing could simply be a bold faced lie to save the government some face in light of Sept 11th.
I'm not worried about them coming after me... I'm worried about the lawmakers completely ignoring the law.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
You're wrong.
If the past is any indicator of the future he is exactly right.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
who's the guy in the trench coat, hat and sunglasses who follows me everytime I walk out of the building ....
:)
That be me, Eagler, but no worries bud. I'm not an agent, I'm a flasher. See, my pants legs are cut off and duct taped to my knees. Next time you turn around I'm giving you a free peek. :)
-
What diff is it? Was he a model citizen? What trash did they really remove from society?
Or did they "make up" his past criminal activities to justify their latest actions?? :rolleyes:
WARNING: Thread Hijack Attempt
Why is it that so many losers in prison turn to Islam? Is it the violent undercurrent of that religion against America and the system which locked them up? Why all the AA (African American - get tired of writing that out :)) converts? Being exposed to Christianity, do they see Islam as " the grass is greener on the other side" religion? Just wondering ...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
If the past is any indicator of the future he is exactly right.
So... the only people complaining about the CIA and FBI are "civil rights people?"
Originally posted by Leslie
Prisoner of war? Wotan, you sound like you're with al queda on this. Why such a strong committment to the defense of a scumbag like Padilla, who yes, is a scumbag, only worse. Traitor perhaps, spy most likely. Why spring to the defense of Padilla so fast? Addressed to Sandman, Weasel and Easymo also.
Les
Please understand that we are not defending Padilla in any way. The government has made an accusation and has incarcerated the man. The government has also stated that there will be no trial. There will be no military tribunal. The man is being held with complete disregard of due process.
Pick a traitor... Ames, Walker, Boone... etc. All were tried in court.
Maybe Padilla is guilty. Guilty or not, he deserves to be charged and have his day in court.
-
Originally posted by easymo
John. If they have such damning evidence, why don't they just present it in an open court? The American people are NOT in a lenient mood right now. It would take almost nothing to convince a court that he joined a foreign army.
You don't know the guy. All you know about him is what the government has told the newsweinies. Your ready to hang him with that? We could all be in deep doo doo.
I can think of at least one very good reason why not to try him in an open court. Evidence would be revealed to the public. Much of this evidence would likely reveal not only under cover agents but also methods in place for catching these enemies of the U.S. I'm not saying anything new here, it's been said before.
Things change when you are at war. Even though most continue life in their usual routine, we are at war.
-
What diff is it? Was he a model citizen? What trash did they really remove from society?
That says it all right there, well about how your thinking.
Just throw 'em all in jail, anyone with a past record... they aren't model citizens, get rid of 'em.... all of 'em... death by firing squad... whatever, it's your choice because you are a "model citizen".......
This is not about the person, or his past... this is about the accusations against him and the government breaking the law when it comes to processing this person. So, in this case the government is breaking the law... guess what, they would have a record now if they were a citizen... take 'em all out back and hang 'em... just like this fella.
As far as Christianity and Islam... why is it that your ignorance surrounding this religion has turned you into believing that they see Islam as better than Christianity- which I'm going to venture a guess is your religion of choice. I'm an atheist, all religions have the same toejam and it all stinks. So don't play the religion card, because Islam is a religion based around peace and caring for a fellow Islamic brother. It helps a lot of black men in jail get through, so? You got a problem with that.
The violent undercurrent in Islam is no differen than the violent undercurrent in Christianity.. nut jobs in both religions, don't make me play the abortion clinic bombings card...
Try to turn the Islamic religion into your enemy, and Christianity as the savior of the free and "sane" world... it'll only go on to prove your ignorance.
-SW
-
Christianity isn't my "choice"
It the one I understand the best but not my choice. Didn't mean to rile ur feathers with the question. Just seems strange to me so many criminals turn to Islam in prison. I'm sure it helps as many as it further corrupts, it ruined Cat Stevens :)
But ur comparison of a "Christian" nutbag abortion clinic bomber to an "Islamic" nutbag who wants to take down a country/society - doesn't hold water with me.
-
(http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20020611/amdf49239.jpg)
... imagine that :)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20020611/ts_nm/attack_dirtybomb_dc_15
Gotta love Reuters:
"Washington blames bin Laden's network for the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people."
I guess they think Santa Claus did it
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Eagler
(http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20020611/amdf49239.jpg)
... imagine that :)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20020611/ts_nm/attack_dirtybomb_dc_15
:rolleyes:
Why should he cooperate? No lawyer, no trial, no justice.
-
What got me was that you believe Islam is the root of all evil. Islamic people do not hate America, MANY Islamic people live happily in this country and love it. MANY Islamic people are on our side in this war on terrorism. Islam is not a religion of evil, hatred or random killing, but some nut jobs have gone to great lengths to make it that way. Afterall, the only reason these particular Islamic people don't like America is because we support Israel which they never liked in the first place and that is why some Islamic extremists despise America and Americans.
But I don't see how you can't not see a difference between abortion clinic bombings, killing doctors and other personnel that work there, and killing of random men, women and children. Abortion clinics are doing their job, then one day a nut job christian decides to blow it up. It's senseless killing anyway you slice it, and it happens on all sides of the fence. So to believe because one side has extremists that hate America and the other side, which is typically in America, kills Americans just doing their job... and somehow one side is more savage... well that's just ignorance.
And there's plenty of white guys in prison that choose christianity, and are just as savage... KKK members-> interprets christianity for their cause, white power members, and neo-nazis...
Christianity has just as much junk in the trunk as other religions, don't believe it's somehow more just than Islam- they both have extremist nut jobs senselessly killing people... and it's both wrong.
-SW
-
When it comes down to plots to use nuclear weapons, I fully expect my government to shoot first and ask questions later. I don't sympathize with this prettythanghole's inability to hire Johnny Cochrane - with fees paid by Osama bin Laden.
I'm sure that Uncle Sam will reveal what he can, when he can.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Why should he cooperate? No lawyer, no trial, no justice.
Uh, to prove his innocence pehaps? If he's not innocent then he is a traitor and deserves nothing more than a bullet in the brain.
-
Let's see. He should cooperate with the interrogators without benefit of legal counsel and with the knowledge that he'll probably not receieve a trial.
Right?:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Let's see. He should cooperate with the interrogators without benefit of legal counsel and with the knowledge that he'll probably not receieve a trial.
Right?:rolleyes:
Like I said, if innocent it seems he'd be very interested in convincing those that have power of life or death over him. If he's not innocent, who gives a sh*t.
-
Sikboy. You are completely correct, and I do apologize for my language.
I suppose it's frustration. This is how I see things.
Short recap: Terrorist planning to detonate a dirty bomb in Washington DC. Depending on his level of success, such a detonation could mean the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Terrorist caught by FBI who turned him over to the military, all in accordannce with the law.
Average conservative reaction: Hooray. WTFG GUYS!!! You saved alot of life. Now, all gather round and lets lynch him. First make him talk, and then string him up.
Average liberal reaction: WHAT!? Now I'm no terrorist sympathizer, but I cant believe this BS. What about his civil rights? Exactly how did the FBI learn about this? His rights MUST have been violated somehow. And what about his fair trial? Lynch GWB, somehow this is all his fault.
Lets just say that I dont understand you guys.
-
I'm no liberal Hortlund, so lets just say you don't understand much about this.
I'm glad they caught they guy, more power to 'em. They got evidence against him? Great! Try his ass... but don't break the law when convicting him- which is what is happening in this case.
If the law makers break the law... then what good is the law?
Find him guilty and kill him, I don't care... but he has rights because he is a US citizen.
EDIT: Compare this situation to the one with the unabomber.... why'd he get a speedy trial 'n all?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
I'm glad they caught they guy, more power to 'em. They got evidence against him? Great! Try his ass... but don't break the law when convicting him- which is what is happening in this case.
If the law makers break the law... then what good is the law?
This is the part I dont understand. Why would you say that they are breaking the law "in this case" when they so obviously are not? Why are you saying that? What does the concept of law mean to you?
Now, please, before you slam me with another quote from the Constitution. Do you really believe that the White House, the state department, the department of justice, the FBI, the department of defence and lord knows who else that are involved...do you think all of them just collectively thought "Yeah, to he** with this guys rights, lets all break the law to get him. Lets pretend we havent read that "Constitution" the liberals are nagging about" OR do you think that they simply are unaware of what the law is?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Like I said, if innocent it seems he'd be very interested in convincing those that have power of life or death over him. If he's not innocent, who gives a sh*t.
Oddly enough, the court exists to prove guilt. Innocence is presumed.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Oddly enough, the court exists to prove guilt. Innocence is presumed.
Not in this case...
muuahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAha <-- evil laughter
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Now, please, before you slam me with another quote from the Constitution. Do you really believe that the White House, the state department, the department of justice, the FBI, the department of defence and lord knows who else that are involved...do you think all of them just collectively thought "Yeah, to he** with this guys rights, lets all break the law to get him. Lets pretend we havent read that "Constitution" the liberals are nagging about" OR do you think that they simply are unaware of what the law is?
I'm shamed that the topic of this thread never even occurred to me....but I'm clueless as to what authority the government claims it does have here. (BTW, I can't see Art II applies - no war has been declared). Not saying there isn't any, I'd just love to hear what it is.
Hortlund, it NEVER pays to assume that government people (or any other people, I suppose) know what they're doing. Never. Not once. If they have authority, they can show it.
- oldman
-
I didn't slam you, or give you a quote from the constitution... however, if you won't accept a quote from the constitution to show the validity of his rights in this case, then you really don't understand a thing about America.
They have to have evidence, something substantial, to link this guy with Bin Laden and to give proof he was actually planning to bomb DC or some other US city. Otherwise he's an innocent man, just because he changed his name to an Islam name does not make him guilty or a terrorist.
They are breaking the law because the law determines someone's guilt.. in this case a COURT of law, because this person is a US citizen. He can only be tried in military tribunal if he can be proven to be a combatent, and this would require more than Bush going "ah, whaddahell.. he's a combatent"
So basically he's being held against his will, without legal representation and detained in a military brig- all of those except the last are guaranteed by the constitution... THE LAW of this land. Unlike other places in the world, the law is for the people, by the people. The government is a representative body.
It's the equivelant of detaining a drug dealer because he talked to a drug lord and has money in his pockets... he has to be tried to be found guilty.
This is the law, and it's being ignored, shifted, manipulated, broken, whatever, in this instance.
-SW
-
What makes you guys so sure he won't get a trial? It may be by a military court but so what? U.S. citizens are tried by military courts every day. Where's the indignant out cry for the poor G.I.'s defending your freedom when they are tried by military courts?
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
I didn't slam you, or give you a quote from the constitution... however, if you won't accept a quote from the constitution to show the validity of his rights in this case, then you really don't understand a thing about America.
[/b]
Let me put it this way. I'll accept a quote from the constitution if you can guarantee that it is de lege lata in this situation.
Let me give an example of what I mean. In our constitution, we have rights, just like you guys. So, for instance in our Constitution (Regeringsformen) 2nd chapter 1st paragraph it says (among other things) that every individual is guaranteed the right to free speech.
Fine, one might think. In Sweden we have the right to free speech, its in the constitution. But lets read on. In the 2nd chapter, 13th paragraph it says "The individuals right to free speech may be limited in some cases." 13th paragraph then lists some of these cases.
Basically what I'm trying to get at here is that even though the right to free speech is guaranteed in our constitution, our constitution also allows our government to make laws that limits that right. Perhaps (and I really have no idea here) your constitution have similar exceptions? And if so, do you agree that it is in accordance with the law that the US government handed him over to the military?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Oddly enough, the court exists to prove guilt. Innocence is presumed.
In time of war you don't wait for a court to tell you it's ok to shoot back.
-
War? We're at war?
Did Congress declare war?
-
Yes, its legal. He's considered to be a military combatant - akin to being a spy. Used to be a time when we shot spies. During the Cold War we traded them for ours that were caught behind the Iron Curtain. I don't see al Quaida looking to do a deal any time soon.
The guy wasn't exactly a saint anyway.
Maybe my experiences here in Florida with the Cuban defectors and the boatlift have jaded my opinion (quite a few 'political prisoners' weren't what they appeared to be), but the guy had a criminal record before leaving the country and I don't see al Quaida being the sort of organization that encourages peace, harmony, and law-abiding behavior so I don't think he was rehabilitated by them at any point in time.
He'll probably do some jail time, lose his citizenship, and get thrown out of the country for good.
-
It's the equivelant of detaining a drug dealer because he talked to a drug lord and has money in his pockets... he has to be tried to be found guilty.
I really disagree. This has to do with weapons of mass destruction, not drug dealing.
I do understand the difficulty some people have with the way the Commander in Chief is handling this - we are a freedom loving people. Who knows, the issue may even be argued, although polls show that two thirds of Americans support military tribunals.
I for one believe that there are good grounds in the Constitution that allow the President to take this action in exigent circumstances like this.
Remember how we tied the hands of the CIA for so many years? We have paid dearly for that. I think its essential that our government not be required to tell publically all it knows about classified information in cases that involve weapons of mass destruction or major loss of human life.
Remember when 9/11 happened? We were all saying, "The world has just changed." Face it!
What is it going to take to convince some of you of that?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
What makes you guys so sure he won't get a trial? It may be by a military court but so what? U.S. citizens are tried by military courts every day. Where's the indignant out cry for the poor G.I.'s defending your freedom when they are tried by military courts?
We signed a contract putting us under the rule of the UCMJ. The status us Active duty Military, and in many cases reserve military denies them some access to some of the protections of the constitution. Just ask that Air-Force Col. who slammed bush in the Monterey Newspaper ;) I'm glad I don't get busted just for badmouting the commander in chimp...( Just kidding. That was for Weazel).
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Remember when 9/11 happened? We were all saying, "The world has just changed." Face it!
What is it going to take to convince some of you of that?
The Constitution has not changed.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
War? We're at war?
Did Congress declare war?
Congress may not have but Al Qaeda certainly did.
Fortunately, our Executive branch has authority to wage war even if somewhat limited.
Very glad that our crippled Judicial branch has no authority in this regard.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
War? We're at war?
Did Congress declare war?
Does it have to? A state of war can exist even though neither part has declared war.
-
This guy is to held for the deration of the "War on Terrorism" without trial?
When does the war on terrorism end? When all terrorists surrender?
-
The Constitution has not changed.
We agree! :)
-
poor cuban exile Islamic terrorist, I'm sure it's America's fault, we just need the ACLU and a Johny Cock-a-roach type to enlightened us of that fact :rolleyes:
Just a shame we have to feed, cloth and shelter his worthless arse ...
-
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 or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Article III:
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
So basically, the law is being manipulated... probably to get the answers out of him and whatever else they are doing in that military brig.. beating what they want out of him? We may never know.
In any event, his constitutional rights are being ignored.
Gunther, you can disagree all you want.. but the analogy works. If you believe "tying the CIA's hands" led to Sept 11th, uhm, you must not have been paying attention the past couple of months.
The information was there, it wasn't in the right place and there were no red flags on this info saying, "hey some toejam just might go down here"... giving the government more authority isn't going any further to prevent attacks... it's just giving them free reign.
After Sept 11th, the world didn't change. The US did, this was the first terrorist attack on US soil. It's been going on for much longer in other parts of the world.
But like I've been saying, you guys can follow the government all you want, hold up the "hurrah hurrah" signs and pat them on their bellybutton for a job well done... but I just ain't buying into it. Rally behind your government, slap a 5x8 flag sticker on your bumper and let the pride in your country flow... I don't care, but I ain't buying into it. Maybe after this is all said and done, we'll see the fruits of this... but right now ain't nothing new happening by us giving the government our rights and not questioning them.
-SW
-
With all this talk of law, I think it's best that we review the source material. I've seen some people quote the Constitution, and that's a personal favorite of mine. But perhaps we should dig deeper and find out what our sharpest minds and greatest scholars have to say on the subject of the law.
It's The Law
By Mike Ness
We're sitting here in this cell,
You know it's like a living hell.
Was what you did really a crime?
The judge says you have to serve time.
chorus:
It's the Law, you're in jail.
It's the Law that sets your bail.
Don't bother to try and fight,
It's only a few more nights
The deputy had a bad night,
He couldn't get it up for his wife.
So, he gonna be pissed on the job and
He's gonna bum out your life.
chorus:
It's the Law, you're in jail.
It's the Law that sets your bail.
Don't bother to try and fight,
It's only a few more nights
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
This guy is to held for the deration of the "War on Terrorism" without trial?
When does the war on terrorism end? When all terrorists surrender?
Thrawn, exactly. When WILL the War on Terrorism end? With the defeat of Islamic terrorists or are we going after other nations (like Libya and North Korea) and including THEM in our "War On Terrorism" too, as GW has stated? If that's the case we'll be at war for a long long time I'm afraid... And in the meantime, back at the ranch, we'll start rounding up our undesireables and stick them in military brigs for the duration of this "war".... even if it goes on for thirty years.
-
SW, I haven't yet researched the facts here but I'm inclined to be trusting this is true.
"We have acted with legal authority both under the laws of war and clear Supreme Court precedent, which establish that the military may detain a United States citizen who has joined the enemy and has entered our country to carry out hostile acts," Attorney General John Ashcroft
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Thrawn, exactly. When WILL the War on Terrorism end? With the defeat of Islamic terrorists or are we going after other nations (like Libya and North Korea) and including THEM in our "War On Terrorism" too, as GW has stated? If that's the case we'll be at war for a long long time I'm afraid... And in the meantime, back at the ranch, we'll start rounding up our undesireables and stick them in military brigs for the duration of this "war".... even if it goes on for thirty years.
You make it sound like this "war" is but an excuse for our government to run rough shod over any they wish. Have you forgotten the thousands, much like you, that died horribly on 9/11 or the greiving families they left behind?
-
cc Iron, but I was under the impression that laws regarding war could only be carried out when war has been declared.. maybe I'm mistaken and war means any military, or other, aggression against our country.
However, the quote says "detain"... so long as they detain him, then there is no need for a court of law to get involved... anytime soon. People can be detained based on probable cause, which they have here... but beyond that, then a court of law should be involved... at the very least legal counsel should be involved.. could be better for all involved. (example: more information extracted from him)
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
at the very least legal counsel should be involved.. could be better for all involved. (example: more information extracted from him)
-SW
Yeah, because
a) He will spill his guts to his lawyer, and
b) said lawyer will break the law and loose his job when he tells the FBI what his client told him
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yeah, because
a) He will spill his guts to his lawyer, and
b) said lawyer will break the law and loose his job when he tells the FBI what his client told him
Well, I wasn't thinking along those lines... I'm sure you've heard of bartering(there's a court of law term for this).. "okay, they'll deport your bellybutton and let you live if you give us the names of terrorists in the states"... things like that.
You're a judge, I'm sure you know what I mean. :)
-SW
-
Well, yeah, but only because I've seen american movies.
Its illegal in Sweden (bartering).
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
We signed a contract putting us under the rule of the UCMJ. The status us Active duty Military, and in many cases reserve military denies them some access to some of the protections of the constitution. Just ask that Air-Force Col. who slammed bush in the Monterey Newspaper ;) I'm glad I don't get busted just for badmouting the commander in chimp...( Just kidding. That was for Weazel).
-Sikboy
When you plot or act to attack/destroy the U.S. you forfeit your constitutional rights in my opinion. If that's not law it oughta be.
BTW, I didn't sign anything that said I was giving up any constitutional rights. Current military members aside, what about draftees?
-
cc, but I don't think it's actually called bartering.. that was just the closest word I could think of.
What I mean is, if you get arrested here for a drug charge... say, a small amount of dope, if you get a lawyer you can get a lesser charge by turning in the drug dealer, or other drug dealers, and it'll help you out cuz you helped them out. Like in the movie "Half Baked" (if you've ever seen it)
Pretty sure you understood what I meant the first time, just wanted to clarify it.
We've got the guy, but there's so many more out there... what good does this one fella do if we kill him or just keep him locked up? Nothing to help us. 20 detained/imprisoned/killed terrorists and 1 set free (using that term loosely) are better than 1 detained/imprisoned/possibly soon to be kill terrorist and 20 out there just waiting for their chance to make their rendition of the big bang.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
War? We're at war?
Did Congress declare war?
I'm at war with you and towel heads that want to kill me.
Congress has toejam to do with it.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
cc, but I don't think it's actually called bartering.. that was just the closest word I could think of.
What I mean is, if you get arrested here for a drug charge... say, a small amount of dope, if you get a lawyer you can get a lesser charge by turning in the drug dealer, or other drug dealers, and it'll help you out cuz you helped them out. Like in the movie "Half Baked" (if you've ever seen it)
Pretty sure you understood what I meant the first time, just wanted to clarify it.
We've got the guy, but there's so many more out there... what good does this one fella do if we kill him or just keep him locked up? Nothing to help us. 20 detained/imprisoned/killed terrorists and 1 set free (using that term loosely) are better than 1 detained/imprisoned/possibly soon to be kill terrorist and 20 out there just waiting for their chance to make their rendition of the big bang.
-SW
I suspect there is more than one reason for handing him to the military. There may be fear he has associates and they do not want him to have any contact that might allow him to pass on any information he may have gained. Many lives are still at risk here.
I may draw your ire here but I'm glad there are those willing to do what it takes to protect us, even if it means bending/breaking the law.
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Thrawn, exactly. When WILL the War on Terrorism end?
When they all are tortured, weeping turds, safe from Johnny Cochran and his $1000 blood bought suit.
:)
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
cc, but I don't think it's actually called bartering.. that was just the closest word I could think of.
What I mean is, if you get arrested here for a drug charge... say, a small amount of dope, if you get a lawyer you can get a lesser charge by turning in the drug dealer, or other drug dealers, and it'll help you out cuz you helped them out. Like in the movie "Half Baked" (if you've ever seen it)
-SW
Is the term "plea bargaining" what you had in mind?
-
Originally posted by Creamo
I'm at war with you and towel heads that want to kill me.
Congress has toejam to do with it.
Hehe... you're kinda sexy when you're assertive. :D
-
Originally posted by Apache
From someone who has/does work with intelligence, some of you are talkin' out your prettythang. You don't have a clue what the gov. has on this terrorist.
Oh, and I bet they would get alot of information from this future intelligence source if he were held by the Justice Dept. Instant invocation of rights. You do know where the gov. got the info on this guy in the first place, right?
And its presumption of innocence, not innocent until proven guilty. TV cop shows ain't real folks.
Give it up Apache....don't you know that the weazels of the world know all....cheap shots from the cheap seats... always ready to cast stones and pass judgment on incomplete facts.
They believe what is printed or patched thru cable news as if it were the truth....drawing conclusions based on the same. Cut and paste this or that tidbit to drive it home.
This happens everytime there is a crisis...a sector of society freaks out and overreacts...the sky is falling, blah blah blah.
We had better support this administration so that they can be effective...if Bush violates innocent citizens rights, then I'll be the first to toss his arse out. Until then, he is my president and I support his and his administrations efforts to protect America and her citizens.
Innocent until proven guilty you say? Try and apply the same to Bush, or would that go against what you believe as well?
Will we get hit again by terrorists? Absolutely....then what will you preach to us? Hey, why not blame Bush?
A friend of mine once said that this board is more entertaining than any television show....what an understatment.
-
cc Sandman that's the one!
Thanks! :)
-SW
-
Formal declarations of war are a thing of the past. Besides... what country would war be declared against?
-
Try this on for size Rude... the ability to stop terrorism has changed within out government in one way... they now know it can happen, and are anticipating it. This means the red flags that were absent on the information they had prior to Sept 11th, will now be on information that pertains to potential terrorist activities.
So the only thing that's changed despite a new office being created, new color code warning for attacks (today's color is nuclear, if you see an explosion you are skarewd), certain offices being given more power... is that we have red flags on information that would potentially pertain to terrorist activities and the ability to get it all into one central location to correlate it together.
That could of happened with the government we had before Sept 11th... it just never happened on our soil before, so the information wasn't relevant.
-SW
-
Gay and a terrorist loving liberal popsicle.
Quite a combo.
Thanks -SW, thats the bestest ever funny haha hoopty one!
Thanks! :)
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Gay and a terrorist loving liberal popsicle.
Quite a combo.
Thanks -SW, thats the bestest ever funny haha hoopty one!
Thanks! :)
Don't sugar coat it. Tell us how you really feel.
-
can't have it both ways -
pls continue with your latest "freedom" whine...
while you are at it, pls list your freedoms which have changed since 9/11 and the gov getting tough with these thugs.. eh?
I can't think of one - but maybe my lifestyle is slightly different than some of yours..
-
:confused:
-
"Freedom" whine, eh? I guess what passes for a whine these days is simply pointing out the obvious.
I'm not complaining about my freedom buddy. I'm not complaining about anything. I'm stating that despite all these new changes in the government, and shifting of powers, it's still the same in terms of stopping a terrorist attack... or getting information on terrorists or terrorist actions.
If they had the information before Sept 11th, why do they need these radical changes to get information on terrorists, potential attacks, or whatever, now? Develop a facade to make the dimwitted believe the government is stronger and better than before, and more capable of stopping a terrorist attack? Hmmm, I think yes.
Just because I don't agree with what the government does, where they are going, or how they are going about it doesn't mean I'm whining. Especially when I'm merely pointing out the obvious.
-SW
-
Well, you have lost your right to due process, if you are suspected of terrorism.
Daff
-
Ooooo.... I wanted to post in this thread but there was little to discuss since its all conjecture.
At least I got 100.
AKDejaVu
-
War? We're at war?
Nope,
Public Law 107-40
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States. <>
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the
United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;
and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, <of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force''.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) <> In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
[[Page 115 STAT. 225]]
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.
Approved September 18, 2001.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S.J. Res. 23 (H.J. Res. 64):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):
Sept. 14, considered and passed Senate and House.
-
Originally posted by Intrepid
Nope
I think there are many Afgans & ppl serving proudly in our armed forces who feel differently
-
Originally posted by Intrepid
Nope,
What is it called then when you are attacked by virtue of nothing other than your nationality by members of another nation and you respond by invading that nation and killing and capturing it's citizens and/or residents?
-
Sorry, it wasn't meant to imply those who answered the call to duty are not making sacrifices. I agree many have and are doing their duty to the best of their ability. Just wanted to let people know the president doesn't need congress to declare a war in order to use troops.
"If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution?"--Frank J. Hogan, President, American Bar Assn. (1939)
-
What is it called then when you are attacked by virtue of nothing other than your nationality by members of another nation and you respond by invading that nation and killing and capturing it's citizens and/or residents?
Ok, I give up what does your question have to do with what I posted? If you just want my opinion of a definition to your question I'd call it combat, self defense, sacrifice. What do you call it?
"If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution?"--Frank J. Hogan, President, American Bar Assn. (1939)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
What is it called then when you are attacked by virtue of nothing other than your nationality by members of another nation and you respond by invading that nation and killing and capturing it's citizens and/or residents?
Well, technically it would have to be an attack by the armed members of another nations armed forces for it to be a war.
So, to answer your question, it would be called terrorism.
-
The Taliban is about the closest thing to an armed force Afghanistan had. It is believed that those who hijacked U.S. planes were members and they were in fact armed. IMO that was an act of war if not by Afghanistan then at least by the Taliban.
-
eh...thats not really how it works
Armed members of a nations armed forces implies soldiers acting under orders from the CiC for that nation.
Terrorists armed with boxcutters doesnt quite fit that description, regardless of the connections between the Taliban and Al Queida
-
Originally posted by john9001
and after jose blows somthing up and kills many people , you 'civil rights" people will say "WHY DIDN'T THE FBI DOOOO SOMETHING, THEY KNEW ABOUT HIM" whine whine
I find myself forced to agree with this statement
-
We once took twice as many casualties, in a single battle, of a ten year long war, as we have in this "war". I find it imbarrssing to see how easy it is to spook some Americans into chucking their own constitution. On a personal note. It makes it even worse, that its the Golly-geen liberals that are showing some balls.
AKiron brought up one of most disturbing things about this. This business of the state claiming it would give away their method of catching the bad guys if they held an open trial. If this precedent is set. The state can make this claim about ANY alleged crime.
-
Originally posted by easymo
We once took twice as many casualties, in a single battle, of a ten year long war, as we have in this "war". I find it imbarrssing to see how easy it is to spook some Americans into chucking their own constitution. On a personal note. It makes it even worse, that its the Golly-geen liberals that are showing some balls.
AKiron brought up one of most disturbing things about this. This business of the state claiming it would give away their method of catching the bad guys if they held an open trial. If this precedent is set. The state can make this claim about ANY alleged crime.
Because we all know that deep down, all the mythical entity known as "the State", wants to do is enslave us all and put us all in jail?
-
Originally posted by easymo
We once took twice as many casualties, in a single battle, of a ten year long war, as we have in this "war". I find it imbarrssing to see how easy it is to spook some Americans into chucking their own constitution. On a personal note. It makes it even worse, that its the Golly-geen liberals that are showing some balls.
AKiron brought up one of most disturbing things about this. This business of the state claiming it would give away their method of catching the bad guys if they held an open trial. If this precedent is set. The state can make this claim about ANY alleged crime.
Unfortunately, they can't give away the means by which evidence was collected. Thats just how it is.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Because we all know that deep down, all the mythical entity known as "the State", wants to do is enslave us all and put us all in jail?
nah, who would pay them, i.e. taxes aren't collected from inmates :)
-
Originally posted by easymo
We once took twice as many casualties, in a single battle, of a ten year long war, as we have in this "war". I find it imbarrssing to see how easy it is to spook some Americans into chucking their own constitution. On a personal note. It makes it even worse, that its the Golly-geen liberals that are showing some balls.
AKiron brought up one of most disturbing things about this. This business of the state claiming it would give away their method of catching the bad guys if they held an open trial. If this precedent is set. The state can make this claim about ANY alleged crime.
How would you feel if it were your spouse and/or kids in one of those planes or towers? If you haven't honestly examined yourself in this light then perhaps you should before judging the way our government is handling the current crisis.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
How would you feel if it were your spouse and/or kids in one of those planes or towers? If you haven't honestly examined yourself in this light then perhaps you should before judging the way our government is handling the current crisis.
You think people who don't live in large cities don't already ponder this... but instead of planes, now it's the possibility of bio-chem weapons, nukes, large explosives, hell maybe just human meat bombs... in the end I'd want an effective plan of action. When GW comes on the news and says, "I want you to pay special attention to your surroundings and report any suspiscious activities to the local authorities immediately."... well I get this feeling that it don't matter WHAT the government does, in the end the only one saving myself or my loved ones would be myself or themselves by watching out for themselves.
So when you examine "What would you do if you were in those people's shoes".. well for one, I wouldn't expect rights or freedoms to be stripped away one by one over the next decade or however long this "war on terrorism" lasts.
The government HAD the information, and the intel, indicating something involving airplanes was gonna happen. They just shrugged it off. "It can't happen here"... well it did, and now for some strange reason people think that giving away their rights or allowing the government free reign will somehow circumvent future terrorist attacks/plots despite the fact the government HAD the information to begin with.. it just wasn't being paid attention to.
Now that the information regarding terrorists is being paid attention to, they're suddenly catching people... imagine that. ;)
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
in the end I'd want an effective plan of action.
I never conceded that what is being done to this alleged enemy isn't legal. I believe that it is. Does the public have a right to know that he is being treated in accordance with law? I don't think so.
What if a public trial revealed to his cohorts how he was trapped and this information enabled them to evade capture and blow up your city. Would you still feel that your idea of due process was warranted?
All hypothetical, maybe, maybe not.
How effective a plan do you want?
BTW, I live very near a big city and on really bad traffic days I probably wouldn't mind a nuke or two. ;)
-
Whoops- I guess I strayed away.. I didn't mean regarding this individual, I meant as a whole... what's happened within the government since Sept 11th... all the shifting around and stuff.
No, indeed based on what I've heard more recently that this guy was definitely in some way involved in terrorist activities. I think he should be tried, however, I believe it will be a quick and swift guilty verdict based on the information that has been gathered.
Whether it's a public trial or not, I wouldn't care... just sentence him and execute him if he's guilty (or whatever plans they have for him)... if he's found innocent of attempting to build/detonate a nuke... he would most likely still be found guilty of treason (I think? he's working for/with an enemy of the US) which would in turn put him into military custody (well again I guess).. and this would probably mean he'll be locked away for the duration of this war anyhow.
-SW
-
SW
Look, I'm not advocating giving away my rights, why should I? I don't think this is some grand scheme for nation wide martial law.
You nor I will go to AlQuaida for example, train to kill Americans, formulate a plan to accomplish this, receive funds to accomplish this, then come back to America to finalize plans to accomplish said mission.
This guy did. He is a member of Al Quaida, no matter his place of birth. He is an enemy combatant. He is an enemy of The United States. Our government isn't interested at this point in criminal prosecution. They have national security in mind.
Have they broken laws? Maybe, I'm not sure but I don't think so. I think we are in a time that new laws are being made. But I needn't worry. I'm not a terrorist or an enemy of the state nor shall I ever be.
Your Friend,
-
So is that guy really a member of Al Quaida or not?
In South-America there are plenty of old presidents who would know how to handle situations like you have now. I heard Augusto Pinochet was quite handy dealing stuff like that. Maybe you could hire some "El Presidente" to help you to throw your constitutional law out from the window :)
-
"How would you feel if it were your spouse and/or kids in one of those planes or towers?"
How will you feel when its one of your kids thats locked up without due process.
"This guy did. He is a member of Al Quaida, no matter his place of birth."
How do you know this? Explain please.
-
As was released by federal announcement, he was trained by Al Quaida in Afghanistan. Makes him a member as far as I'm concerned.
-
Here is a tip for ya. The Fed's lie. They lie often, and well.
Ever hear of bill clinton, richard nixon, ......Ill get writers cramp if I try to fill this list out.
-
Originally posted by easymo
Here is a tip for ya. The Fed's lie. They lie often, and well.
Ever hear of bill clinton, richard nixon, ......Ill get writers cramp if I try to fill this list out.
But lawyers, judges, and juries never lie and always ensure justice?
-
Originally posted by easymo
"How would you feel if it were your spouse and/or kids in one of those planes or towers?"
How will you feel when its one of your kids thats locked up without due process.
"This guy did. He is a member of Al Quaida, no matter his place of birth."
How do you know this? Explain please.
I don't think any of my kids are ever likely to be plotting to bring an end to my way of life. Both my sons are in the U.S. Army Reserves. However, even if they were wrongly accused of consorting and plotting with the enemy I'd feel better than if they and their families (youngest son isn't married) were murdered as so many were on 9/11 and will be again if we aren't vigilant in stopping our enemy.