Author Topic: The law?  (Read 1805 times)

Offline AKSWulfe

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
The law?
« Reply #60 on: June 11, 2002, 12:06:25 PM »
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

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12642
The law?
« Reply #61 on: June 11, 2002, 12:12:37 PM »
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?
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
The law?
« Reply #62 on: June 11, 2002, 12:20:28 PM »
Quote
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?

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12642
The law?
« Reply #63 on: June 11, 2002, 12:20:46 PM »
Quote
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.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
The law?
« Reply #64 on: June 11, 2002, 12:25:05 PM »
War? We're at war?

Did Congress declare war?
sand

Offline gofaster

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6622
The law?
« Reply #65 on: June 11, 2002, 12:25:47 PM »
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.

Offline Gunthr

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3043
      • http://www.dot.squat
The law?
« Reply #66 on: June 11, 2002, 12:26:29 PM »
Quote
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?
"When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off."  - Helvetius 18th Century

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
The law?
« Reply #67 on: June 11, 2002, 12:28:15 PM »
Quote
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
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
The law?
« Reply #68 on: June 11, 2002, 12:28:27 PM »
Quote
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.
sand

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12642
The law?
« Reply #69 on: June 11, 2002, 12:31:21 PM »
Quote
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.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
The law?
« Reply #70 on: June 11, 2002, 12:31:43 PM »
Quote
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.

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
The law?
« Reply #71 on: June 11, 2002, 12:39:20 PM »
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?

Offline Gunthr

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3043
      • http://www.dot.squat
The law?
« Reply #72 on: June 11, 2002, 12:42:12 PM »
Quote
The Constitution has not changed.


We agree! :)
"When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off."  - Helvetius 18th Century

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18096
The law?
« Reply #73 on: June 11, 2002, 12:43:06 PM »
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 ...
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline AKSWulfe

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
The law?
« Reply #74 on: June 11, 2002, 12:47:51 PM »
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