WH: Some Critics 'Serving the Goals of al Qaeda'*
February 09, 2010 7:16 AM
PrintRSSE-mailShare this blog entry with friendsFacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponMore
In an oped in USA Today, John Brennan -- Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism -- responds to critics of the Obama administration's counterterrorism policies by saying "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."
Brennan writes that, "Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill."
In the oped, titled "'We need no lectures': Administration disrupts terrorists’ plots, takes fight to them abroad," Brennan writes that politics "should never get in the way of national security. But too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe."
The administration op-ed is in response to a USA Today editorial entitled "National security team fails to inspire confidence; Officials’ handling of Christmas Day attack looks like amateur hour."
Brennan provides a detailed defense of the administration's handling of failed Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab whom, he says, was "thoroughly interrogated and provided important information."
He suggests that many critics are hypocritical and clueless.
The most important breakthrough in the interrogation occurred "after Abdulmutallab was read his rights, which the FBI made standard policy under Michael Mukasey, President Bush's attorney general," he writes, noting that failed shoe bomber Richard Reid "was read his Miranda rights five minutes after being taken off a plane he tried to blow up. The same people who criticize the president today were silent back then."
Brennan said anyone who wants to change the policy would be casting aside lessons learned "in waging this war" on extremists.
"Terrorists such as Jose Padilla and Saleh al-Mari did not cooperate when transferred to military custody, which can harden one's determination to resist cooperation," he writes.
He calls it "naive to think that transferring Abdulmutallab to military custody would have caused an outpouring of information. There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform. The suspect gets access to a lawyer, and interrogation rules are nearly identical."
Moreover, Brennan says, hundreds of terrorists have been convicted in criminal courts while only three have been convicted in the military tribunal system.
The former CIA official also asserts that the Obama administration is doing a better job than the Bush administration did in taking the fight to al Qaeda. "This administration's efforts have disrupted dozens of terrorist plots against the homeland and been responsible for killing and capturing hundreds of hard-core terrorists, including senior leaders in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond — far more than in 2008."
"We need no lectures about the fact that this nation is at war," he says.
USA Today's editorial writers see it all a bit differently, of course, writing that though "the Obama administration's national security officials have struggled to assure the public that they know exactly what they're doing," they are so far "achieving the opposite, and they're needlessly adding some jitters in the process."
The editorial writers fault the Obama administration for announcing "last week that an attack by al-Qaeda is likely in the next three to six months. The warning is bound to frighten the public, with no obvious benefit beyond the ability to say 'I told you so.'"
They also refer to National Intelligence Director Admiral Dennis Blair (ret.) as having "had a 'Duh!' moment" for acknowledging that "authorities fumbled the initial questioning of Abdulmutallab by failing to call in the high-value interrogation group, which was created to question terrorism suspects. Refreshingly candid, yes, but not a statement that inspires confidence. Especially when the same day, at another Senate hearing, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified that the high-value unit was still in its 'formation stages' and that 'there was no time' to get it to Detroit."
USA Today's editorial writers say that when senior administration officials revealed Abdulmutallab's cooperation with authorities, "the news pretty much negate(d) earlier claims that no intelligence was lost when Abdulmutallab was prematurely read his rights."
- jpt
UPDATE: Missouri Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in response to the Brennan op-ed: "The only one making this political is the White House. The Administration must do better, because trying to pass the buck for their dangerous decisions and divulging sensitive information to al Qaeda is not an effective terror-fighting strategy."
I agree with this line: many critics are hypocrites and clueless. On top of that, why the hell is Brennan reading the USA Today of all newspapers?!
The media is probably the best entity around when it comes to fear-mongering, spreading hate, misrepresentation, etc. And it too must be dealt with so I've got no problems when the Whitehouse has to come and clarify against blatant bs such as death panels and in this case, an oversimplification and hypocritical piece on the infamous X-Mas day bomber. Trolls can make a lucrative living and become seemingly powerful once they establish their name after all I actually like that this administration is seemingly more open to the public than Clinton's and Bush's.
That doesn't mean writers shouldn't write opinionated articles that do little more than shock - we've all got to get our $$$ somehow. They just gotta be prepared if they get called out on.
gorgon wrote:Fraz, were you all over this when Cheney and company used the same rhetoric?
He's a footsoldier. The idea that it's only bad when the other side does it is how his brain works. This is no different to the number of GOP characters spouting off about how bad it is to use criminal methods to respond to terrorism, when they made no such criticism of Bush, and certainly never criticised Reagan for the same. It's what happens when a movement becomes intellectually bankrupt and starts to form argument purely on the most appealing one-liners.
Meanwhile, it was disappointing Brennan included that line. The rest of the article was well argued and quite handily dismissed the silly rhetoric surrounding the issue. Unfortunately, the whole media focus will likely be on that one line.
gorgon wrote:Fraz, were you all over this when Cheney and company used the same rhetoric?
He's a footsoldier. The idea that it's only bad when the other side does it is how his brain works. This is no different to the number of GOP characters spouting off about how bad it is to use criminal methods to respond to terrorism, when they made no such criticism of Bush, and certainly never criticised Reagan for the same. It's what happens when a movement becomes intellectually bankrupt and starts to form argument purely on the most appealing one-liners.
Meanwhile, it was disappointing Brennan included that line. The rest of the article was well argued and quite handily dismissed the silly rhetoric surrounding the issue. Unfortunately, the whole media focus will likely be on that one line.
Mmm...love the insult. typical. When in doubt attack with personal insults. Goebbels would be proud.
At the time when these statements were being made by the Republicans I thought they were equally stupid.
Basically, it seems the author is wishing a British attitude to Terrorism. Which is simply 'don't be scared, just be aware'.
I kind of see where he comes from, as some media outlets prefer to sensationalise every story that comes there way, which of course makes Terror attacks etc that much more of a threat, even when, 9/11 apart, Al Qaeda operatives in the US and the UK seem really rather incompetent.
See, posted without taking political sides. It can be done!
I think it’s an unnecessary and sensationalistic line. That said, if terrorists want to instill terror, than people who capitalize on and help spread disproportionate fear would indeed seem to be playing into the hands of terrorists.
They absolutely can be. And in the case of this article, I think he may have been wrong to say it. I just meant that in a more general sense, increasing the fear level is not the best response to terrorism.
ShumaGorath wrote:Amusingly, by the definition of terrorism the news agencies that make a conscious effort to frighten the American population are terrorists.
ShumaGorath wrote:Amusingly, by the definition of terrorism the news agencies that make a conscious effort to frighten the American population are terrorists.
And there's the rub. How many times have we seen members of the Republican caucus getting in front of a camera and 'telling' us how dangerous it is to try these people on American soil? Cognitive dissonance at it's best. i.e., we can't let the terrorists be held on American soil, prosecuted by the American ciminal justice system, etc. While completely igonring the decades of us successfully doing just that. Idiots.
Thats a blindingly separate issue. Put them onshore and some judge in some dumpwater berg will say they have rights.
Can't be interrogated for information.
Could potentially be set free.
You're seeing now that the Obama administration, which scoffed at bush, is having to do the same thing as Bush for the same reasons (Holder should stilll be terminated).
Can't be interrogated for information.
Could potentially be set free.
Yeah, it's so terrible when a jury finds that we captured a civilian, tortured them for information, and then realized that they never did anything because they might set them free. Thank god we have such scions of justice as yourself thinking ahead and making sure that no matter the reason or circumstances behind a suspects capture that they get tortured and then imprisoned forever in a country that we don't even have formal relations with.
You're seeing now that the Obama administration, which scoffed at bush, is having to do the same thing as Bush for the same reasons (Holder should stilll be terminated).
And here I thought that it was because all the states were too frightened of big mean muslim terrorists to allow them to stay in their prison system along side the serial killers and domestic terrorists.
Can't be interrogated for information.
Could potentially be set free.
Yeah, it's so terrible when a jury finds that we captured a civilian, tortured them for information, and then realized that they never did anything because they might set them free. Thank god we have such scions of justice as yourself thinking ahead and making sure that no matter the reason or circumstances behind a suspects capture that they get tortured and then imprisoned forever in a country that we don't even have formal relations with.
You're seeing now that the Obama administration, which scoffed at bush, is having to do the same thing as Bush for the same reasons (Holder should stilll be terminated).
And here I thought that it was because all the states were too frightened of big mean muslim terrorists to allow them to stay in their prison system along side the serial killers and domestic terrorists.
You mean like the Yemeni released from Gitmo now heading up Yemen's terrorism operations right? RIGHT?
Can't be interrogated for information. Could potentially be set free.
Yeah, it's so terrible when a jury finds that we captured a civilian, tortured them for information, and then realized that they never did anything because they might set them free. Thank god we have such scions of justice as yourself thinking ahead and making sure that no matter the reason or circumstances behind a suspects capture that they get tortured and then imprisoned forever in a country that we don't even have formal relations with.
You're seeing now that the Obama administration, which scoffed at bush, is having to do the same thing as Bush for the same reasons (Holder should stilll be terminated).
And here I thought that it was because all the states were too frightened of big mean muslim terrorists to allow them to stay in their prison system along side the serial killers and domestic terrorists.
You mean like the Yemeni released from Gitmo now heading up Yemen's terrorism operations right? RIGHT?
*shrugs* your willing to imprison and torture innocent civilians indefinitely in order to prevent a handful from slipping through the cracks. I am not. More people die from lightning then from terrorism in this country, and I really just don't care. Oddly enough, I have both the moral high ground and I'm apparently the only one that realizes that TORTURING SOMEONE FOR HALF A DECADE WILL CAUSE THEM TO TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST YOU EVEN IF THEY WERE INNOCENT. It's as if the torture issue, as has been stated by the intelligence community and our military leaders, hurts us far more than it helps by doing the recruiting job of Al Queda for them.
Can't be interrogated for information.
Could potentially be set free.
Yeah, it's so terrible when a jury finds that we captured a civilian, tortured them for information, and then realized that they never did anything because they might set them free. Thank god we have such scions of justice as yourself thinking ahead and making sure that no matter the reason or circumstances behind a suspects capture that they get tortured and then imprisoned forever in a country that we don't even have formal relations with.
You're seeing now that the Obama administration, which scoffed at bush, is having to do the same thing as Bush for the same reasons (Holder should stilll be terminated).
And here I thought that it was because all the states were too frightened of big mean muslim terrorists to allow them to stay in their prison system along side the serial killers and domestic terrorists.
You mean like the Yemeni released from Gitmo now heading up Yemen's terrorism operations right? RIGHT?
*shrugs* your willing to imprison and torture innocent civilians indefinitely in order to prevent a handful from slipping through the cracks. I am not. More people die from lightning then from terrorism in this country, and I really just don't care. Oddly enough, I have both the moral high ground and I'm apparently the only one that realizes that TORTURING SOMEONE FOR HALF A DECADE WILL CAUSE THEM TO TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST YOU EVEN IF THEY WERE INNOCENT. It's as if the torture issue, as has been stated by the intelligence community and our military leaders, hurts us far more than it helps by doing the recruiting job of Al Queda for them.
No you've got it all wrong. Lets restate.
US citizens priority all other considerations rescinded.
If they show up with a bomb in their pants they go to the military, the light of day never to be seen again.
EDIT. Here's the part where you rant and rave and feel morally superior. Why don't you call the Whitehouse and invite the underwear bomber to your house to stay during trial. How about KSM? You can float the bail. I'm sure he's innocent and would not have given up more information on potential terrorist attacks that could be in progress now.
No you've got it all wrong. Lets restate. US citizens priority all other considerations rescinded. If they show up with a bomb in their pants they go to the military, the light of day never to be seen again.
Weren't a majority of those detained in guantanamo detained on charges of suspicion, and not actual offenses?
No you've got it all wrong. Lets restate. US citizens priority all other considerations rescinded.
And that is why people are flying planes into our buildings.
If they show up with a bomb in their pants they go to the military, the light of day never to be seen again.
Funny how thats never what actually happens though. Your lack of respect for the concepts of human rights, the magna carta, and simple morality are stunning sometimes.
Terrorists don't have rights. US citizens have rights.
Terrorists are not terrorists until proven guilty of the crime of terrorism. Thats the whole crux of the issue, you just want to black bag anyone on any suspicion and I don't want to live in the soviet union.
they were flying planes into the trade centers before we did anything bucko.
Yes, I'm sure overthrowing several democratic governments in the region and playing pinball with the soviets in their countries is nothing.
I know your memory span is short but they started this by killing us.
Frazzled wrote:Thats a blindingly separate issue. Put them onshore and some judge in some dumpwater berg will say they have rights.
Can't be interrogated for information.
Could potentially be set free.
You're seeing now that the Obama administration, which scoffed at bush, is having to do the same thing as Bush for the same reasons (Holder should stilll be terminated).
Take a bow Frazzled, you've made my point about Cognitive Dissonance. And holy crap, do you really think that they don't have rights? Do you honestly believe that a human being, no matter how dispicable his/her actions may be, do not have certain inalienable rights?! Rights aren't given, they are recognized. Oh, and by 'inteorrogated' you mean tortured right? Geneva Conventions anyone, anyone?. Yes, of cource they could potentially be set free. Do you have any freaking concept as to how our judicial system works? The Rule of Law is not something you can ignore when it's inconvenient. Nobody is above the law, not Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Obama, Holder...nobody. It's high time that they and you remember this. Way to crap on 100+ years of jurisprudence.
Also, I'd say it's a lot more people than just the Obama administration that is scoffing at the nightmare that was the Bush administration. Perhaps everyone that voted for Obama? More cognitive dissonance. You see this nonsence all the time on T.V and the intertubes. That is, how does a tea-bagger/neo-con/republican maintain that the majority of Americans don't want Health Care reform and health insurance reform when it is the majority that voted the current administration into power (along with the House and Senate).
You see it in the stimulus as well. Republicans talk ad nauseum about how this was a job-killing bill. Every one of the knuckledheads voted against it. Then you see folks like Cantor, Boehner, and company locally lauding the stimulus as supplying much needed funds to promote job growth. They'll never say this in a national forum, but then again, all politics is local. Cognitive Dissonance.
Furthermore, the Obama administration doesn't have to do the same things as Bush. Holder should be enforcing the Law, independent of influence from the current administration. To put another way, Holder and the DoJ must follow RAW. Sure they can set priority as to what gets the most attention (Dems --> Civil Rights, Reps --> ? what did the they do ?), but ultimately they have to follow the law.
Woof, got a little side-tracked there, sorry about that. It's just the opinion/stance you're voicing has so many underlying problems.
Hmm, you mean the "certain inalienable rights" as pertains to people that are citizens of THIS country.
Last time I checked Yemen is not US owned so therefore Yemenese (ha, that's a cool word) and anyone else that is not a US citizen DO NOT have "inalienable rights". I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights pertains ONLY to this country. If it doesn't I was lied to through all 12 years of school.
I'm sorry. Detainees at Gitmo have life a lot nicer than any rapist or serial killer detained in any maximum security prison in the US. Got to love the leftist fabrication of the inhumane torture methods used on criminals.
You want to see inhumane torture watch Hostel or Hostel 2.
But hey, terrorists aren't a threat. It's all just right-wing propaganda. We should open our arms to everyone, even the Yemenese or guys like the underwear bomber who are allowed to purchase a one way ticket to the US who also happens to have NO luggage on him, not even a carry-on. Yeah, Napolitano(sp) is right. Our system DOES work. Yeesh.
Fateweaver wrote:Hmm, you mean the "certain inalienable rights" as pertains to people that are citizens of THIS country.
Last time I checked Yemen is not US owned so therefore Yemenese (ha, that's a cool word) and anyone else that is not a US citizen DO NOT have "inalienable rights". I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights pertains ONLY to this country. If it doesn't I was lied to through all 12 years of school.
The Declaration's relationship to slavery was taken up in 1854 by Abraham Lincoln, a little-known former Congressman who idolized the Founding Fathers.[169] Lincoln thought that the Declaration of Independence expressed the highest principles of the American Revolution, and that the Founding Fathers had tolerated slavery with the expectation that it would ultimately wither away.[4] For the United States to legitimize the expansion of slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, thought Lincoln, was to repudiate the principles of the Revolution. In his October 1854 Peoria speech, Lincoln said:
Nearly eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a "sacred right of self-government." ... Our republican robe is soiled and trailed in the dust. Let us repurify it. ... Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it. ... If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union: but we shall have saved it, as to make, and keep it, forever worthy of the saving.[170]
The meaning of the Declaration was a recurring topic in the famed debates between Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in 1858. Douglas argued that "all men are created equal" in the Declaration referred to white men only. The purpose of the Declaration, he said, had simply been to justify the independence of the United States, and not to proclaim the equality of any "inferior or degraded race".[171] Lincoln, however, thought that the language of the Declaration was deliberately universal, setting a high moral standard for which the American republic should aspire. "I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere", he said.[172] According to Pauline Maier, Douglas's interpretation was more historically accurate, but Lincoln's view ultimately prevailed. "In Lincoln's hands", wrote Maier, "the Declaration of Independence became first and foremost a living document" with "a set of goals to be realized over time".[173]
Like Daniel Webster, James Wilson, and Joseph Story before him, Lincoln argued that the Declaration of Independence was a founding document of the United States, and that this had important implications for interpreting the Constitution, which had been ratified more than a decade after the Declaration.[175] Although the Constitution did not use the word "equality", Lincoln believed that the Declaration's "all men are created equal" remained a part of the nation's founding principles.[176] He famously expressed this belief in the opening sentence of his 1863 Gettysburg Address: "Four score and seven years ago [i.e. in 1776] our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
[T]here is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man.
—Abraham Lincoln, 1858[174]
Black people weren't citizens then. Apparently you would have preferred to vote for Stephen Douglas, and denied them any rights because of that.
Fateweaver wrote:I'm sorry. Detainees at Gitmo have life a lot nicer than any rapist or serial killer detained in any maximum security prison in the US.
Thanks for proving the point. Even the scummiest criminals retain certain rights (though they lose others). Even a person convicted of raping and killing people has rights. Yet people try to claim that a person SUSPECTED of raising arms against us, or planting a bomb, has none? Just because you do something terrible doesn’t mean you have no rights. And if the accusation has not yet been proven, that goes double.
Fateweaver wrote:Hmm, you mean the "certain inalienable rights" as pertains to people that are citizens of THIS country.
Last time I checked Yemen is not US owned so therefore Yemenese (ha, that's a cool word) and anyone else that is not a US citizen DO NOT have "inalienable rights". I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights pertains ONLY to this country. If it doesn't I was lied to through all 12 years of school.
I'm sorry. Detainees at Gitmo have life a lot nicer than any rapist or serial killer detained in any maximum security prison in the US. Got to love the leftist fabrication of the inhumane torture methods used on criminals.
You want to see inhumane torture watch Hostel or Hostel 2.
But hey, terrorists aren't a threat. It's all just right-wing propaganda. We should open our arms to everyone, even the Yemenese or guys like the underwear bomber who are allowed to purchase a one way ticket to the US who also happens to have NO luggage on him, not even a carry-on. Yeah, Napolitano(sp) is right. Our system DOES work. Yeesh.
Chill your boots my right wing friend!
The problem people had with Guantanamo Bay was the status of the detainees. Not PoW, not conventional Prisoners, but the curiously monickered 'Illegal Combatants'. This neatly avoided the Geneva Convention, without straying into standard criminal law. Many of them were held for apparently being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't think anyone but the looniest lefty would ever consider ALL detainees to be innocent, but doubtlessly some would have been held, without charge, for several years when they had done nothing wrong.
As for Terrorists not being a threat, that's not what people are claiming either. What is annoying is when the exact level of threat is magnified and exaggerated just to sell a paper or news programme. Take the UK for example. Although we largely take the threat of Terrorism seriously, by and large we don't let it affect our day to day life. Most Terror plots are well under control by the relevant authorities, but sadly it will always be impossible to stop them all. What is heartening is that as I said earlier, the attacks since 9/11 have mostly been a bit of a joke. Take the 7/7 bombings in London. They attacked the Underground, and cocked it up. If they were anywhere near the threat some might have us believe, the casualty count would have been far, far higher. But it wasn't. Because the bombers were incompetent in the extreme. Clever, but ultimately ill trained, ill equipped and not terribly well organised.
By over egging the pudding when it comes to the Terrorists, you make some people jumpy, and some people crazy. The crazies take it out on whichever poor sod they decide is a threat, giving the real Terrorists ammo to recruit confused young men to their cause. To suggest the problem isn't under control, when it very much seems to be is downright irresponsible.
Frazzled wrote:Declaration is not the law of the land. The US Constitution is.
But the Declaration is where we state that one of the founding principles of our nation is that ALL men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights.
The Constitution spells out the basic limits of what our government is allowed to do. And the Bill of Rights amends it to protect people's rights. As an exercise for the reader, please note how many times the Bill of Rights uses the word "citizens" to tell us whose rights are being protected, as opposed to "people".
Whether or not you’re a citizen, you have rights under
the United States Constitution. The Fifth Amendment
gives every person the right to remain silent: not to
answer questions asked by a police officer or government
agent. The Fourth Amendment restricts the government’s
power to enter and search your home or
workplace, although there are many exceptions and new
laws have expanded the government’s power to conduct
surveillance. The First Amendment protects your
right to speak freely and to advocate for social change.
However, if you are a non-citizen and are deportable,
DHS* can target you based on your political activities.
Fourteenth Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The first sentence tells us who is a citizen. The second and third protect not only citizens, but every person within any state's jurisdiction.
Okay so as a non-citizen you have the right to say what you want, right to remain silent and the right to avoid illegal search and seizure.
None of those rights covers blowing gak up or trying to blow gak up.
@MDG: Not saying that every person in the US should look constantly over their shoulder for terrorists or terrorists attacks but there have been far more attempts of terrorism since 9/11 than have been before. Terrorists are getting bolder because ever since the rise of Obamanation the people who should be protecting our country (oh, like the SoD or our CiC, aka President) are too busy trying to kiss everyones ass and making sure we are PC about who we profile and who we don't.
I'm sorry but letting a foreigner (of any nationality) onto a plane who is paying with cash, buying a one way ticket and has no luggage, not even a carry on BUT frisking and patting down an 80yo woman in a walker or a child of about 8 is the most absurd snafu in the entire history of snafu's. I mean seriously, how can our SoD say the system works when it allows stuff like that to happen.
I really hope the underwear bomber suffered excruciating pain from starting his own package on fire and I'm sure it took considerable restraint from most of the passengers to not have beaten him dead and tossed his corpse onto the tarmac after the plane landed.
Frazzled wrote:Declaration is not the law of the land. The US Constitution is.
But the Declaration is where we state that one of the founding principles of our nation is that ALL men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights.
The Constitution spells out the basic limits of what our government is allowed to do. And the Bill of Rights amends it to protect people's rights. As an exercise for the reader, please note how many times the Bill of Rights uses the word "citizens" to tell us whose rights are being protected, as opposed to "people".
Whether or not you’re a citizen, you have rights under
the United States Constitution. The Fifth Amendment
gives every person the right to remain silent: not to
answer questions asked by a police officer or government
agent. The Fourth Amendment restricts the government’s
power to enter and search your home or
workplace, although there are many exceptions and new
laws have expanded the government’s power to conduct
surveillance. The First Amendment protects your
right to speak freely and to advocate for social change.
However, if you are a non-citizen and are deportable,
DHS* can target you based on your political activities.
Fourteenth Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The first sentence tells us who is a citizen. The second and third protect not only citizens, but every person within any state's jurisdiction.
THATS WHY YOU DON"T FRIGGING BRING THE TERRORISTS INTO THE US.
Foreign type here. Bit confused with people mentioning the Bill, Constitution and Declaration? Please let me know which each is, how they differ etc and which takes precedence.
@Fateweaver. Not going to enter into this one with you skip. Don't know enough about the situation, so just going to hold my tongue.
Frazzled wrote:THATS WHY YOU DON"T FRIGGING BRING THE TERRORISTS INTO THE US.
Either we believe in justice, freedom, the rule of law and inalienable human rights or we don’t. Limiting it to people within our geographic borders while taking and holding prisoners on foreign soil (Gitmo, foreign prisons) is just a legalistic dodge for people trying to get away with ignoring our country’s founding principles.
It’s un-American. It’s dishonorable and a stain on our principles. It makes me sick.
Fateweaver wrote:Okay so as a non-citizen you have the right to say what you want, right to remain silent and the right to avoid illegal search and seizure.
None of those rights covers blowing gak up or trying to blow gak up.
But they certainly cover not being stuffed in a secret prison and denied your right to a trial and to due process of law. Habeus GODDAM Corpus. Ever heard of it? If you think it's "some foreign stuff", then I suggest that your opinion is a waste of the air you're breathing, and I ask you to refrain from sharing it with us.
Frazz, I think you missed the memo about Gitmo being so horrible that our Overlord is shutting it down and either releasing it's prisoners back into the fold (to repeat their crime again of course) or sending them to be tried in a criminal court (where we all know short of rape and molestation you walk free majority of the time or get a hand slap and a stern lecture) to which you can bet the ACLU will be all over the jury like flies all over gak to let that person free because to find a minority guilty of a crime is profiling and racist and anything else the nut job ACLU'ers can think of.
Tis the reason the Pres. is doing that in the first place. He feels empathy and wants Muslims to understand that we, as a country, want them to feel welcome and safe even if the nut jobs that practice Islam don't make the people of the US feel safe. You see, it's not on them (the non-violent ones) to help us understand. It is somehow on the shoulders of our country to try to convince Muslims that even if the nut jobs amongst them kill Americans and want to destroy our country that it's okay, that we can be friends and hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
Hey Fateweaver, if you think being locked up in a foreign country away from your family for a few years is no big deal, especially with treatment as nice as what we give people in Gitmo, how about you go get yourself locked up there?
Mannahnin wrote:Either we believe in justice, freedom, the rule of law and inalienable human rights or we don’t. Limiting it to people within our geographic borders while taking and holding prisoners on foreign soil (Gitmo, foreign prisons) is just a legalistic dodge for people trying to get away with ignoring our country’s founding principles.
It’s un-American. It’s dishonorable and a stain on our principles. It makes me sick.
*shrug* I dunno. Wasn't there a whole verse about torturing people in that Lee Greenwood song?
Mannahnin wrote:Hey Fateweaver, if you think being locked up in a foreign country away from your family for a few years is no big deal, especially with treatment as nice as what we give people in Gitmo, how about you go get yourself locked up there?
Your missing the point entirely Mannahnin.
These are not people, they are gray blobs, that want to destroy us. They come from the planet Zardon, and they want to drain our precious bodily fluids.
...
WAKE UP! The aliens are here, they aren't people, they have no rights that I recognize. Nuke the planet from orbit, all of these aliens look incredibly similar.
@MDG: Not saying that every person in the US should look constantly over their shoulder for terrorists or terrorists attacks but there have been far more attempts of terrorism since 9/11 than have been before. Terrorists are getting bolder because ever since the rise of Obamanation the people who should be protecting our country (oh, like the SoD or our CiC, aka President) are too busy trying to kiss everyones ass and making sure we are PC about who we profile and who we don't.
September 11th happened in 2001. Obama took office in 2009. I wasn't sure if you knew those dates.
Mannahnin wrote:I think it’s an unnecessary and sensationalistic line. That said, if terrorists want to instill terror, than people who capitalize on and help spread disproportionate fear would indeed seem to be playing into the hands of terrorists.
Mannahnin wrote:I think it’s an unnecessary and sensationalistic line. That said, if terrorists want to instill terror, than people who capitalize on and help spread disproportionate fear would indeed seem to be playing into the hands of terrorists.
So Obama is a terrorist?
less so than bush was, but then the term terrorist is utterly meaningless in modern parlance anyway, so sure.
Mannahnin wrote:Hey Fateweaver, if you think being locked up in a foreign country away from your family for a few years is no big deal, especially with treatment as nice as what we give people in Gitmo, how about you go get yourself locked up there?
Mann, if you think it's okay to attempt to blow up buildings and commit other acts of terrorism that the detainees at Gitmo did or attempted to do, or had ties to people attempting to do those things is okay than I don't recognize you as a US citizen and I'll tell you not to let the door hit you in the ass on the way out of this country.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
@MDG: Not saying that every person in the US should look constantly over their shoulder for terrorists or terrorists attacks but there have been far more attempts of terrorism since 9/11 than have been before. Terrorists are getting bolder because ever since the rise of Obamanation the people who should be protecting our country (oh, like the SoD or our CiC, aka President) are too busy trying to kiss everyones ass and making sure we are PC about who we profile and who we don't.
September 11th happened in 2001. Obama took office in 2009. I wasn't sure if you knew those dates.
I know the dates, TYVM kind sir. I'm reminded because A) it's a date to NOT forget and B) My dads bday is 9/11/52.
My point about Obama is that since January of last year he's done more apologizing to terrorist countries and organizations known to harbor terrorists than he has kicking ass and taking names and treating them like what they are....scum.
A child molester is scum but a child molester ranks above a terrorist in my book (which is just one step above gak pile).
FW wrote:My point about Obama is that since January of last year he's done more apologizing to terrorist countries and organizations known to harbor terrorists than he has kicking ass and taking names and treating them like what they are....scum.
None of this is new coming from you, so I will take it with a grain of salt.
You are not America, and we live in the U.S., along side many types of people. The fact that you are too narrow-minded to see that stepping on the face of entire countries, because you want us to be macho-man Ameri-cuh, doesn't help other people understand you. I doubt that you care if people understand you, being as your pattern is one of etc... fill in the blank, we all know your shtick.
I do not want an administration that acts like Rambo. I have absolutely no problem with our current administration, attempting to address the subtle underlying issues involved with foreign policy. Good on them for having some freaking humility, we have ran our campaign of 8 years of stupid, brutish foreign policy. I don't want anymore of that, it is a generic recipe for the entire planet hating us as a nation. You can call it guilt, it doesn't matter, I do not want a bull-headed moron running our foreign policy.
You can jab President Obama, for bowing too low or whatever. Limiting his actions to one of a pompous douche, incapable of respecting the authority of other nations in general, solves no problems. It in fact causes many problems.
My point about Obama is that since January of last year he's done more apologizing to terrorist countries and organizations known to harbor terrorists than he has kicking ass and taking names and treating them like what they are....scum.
What countries are terrorist countries that he's apologized too again?
A child molester is scum but a child molester ranks above a terrorist in my book (which is just one step above gak pile).
I guess I'll apologize on behalf of all Americans who love our country for treating anyone who would attempt to harm it's citizens or actually in fact harming it's citizens and toppling one of our great national monuments as scum who should be locked up forever.
Organizing your entire anti-terrorist operation (which is a joke now) to ensure you stay PC about it and don't step on someone's feet and profile is somehow NOT apologizing to terrorists?
Treating the Yemenese bomber and other terrorists out of Gitmo by closing it down and trying them in civil courts is the same thing as apologizing to the countries those terrorists or suspected terrorists come from and basically saying "we were wrong to treat them the way we did so to make it up to you we will try them in the same courts that US citizens try them in and we'll even let the ACLU in on the court hearings to make sure that the proceedings remain unbiased".
Obamanation does NOT want terrorists or suspected terrorists treated in military courts because he, and others like him, feel empathy toward them and knows they won't get a fair, non-biased trial. Bring them into US courts and NOW we, as a people, have to comply with the laws laid down in the "U.S" Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It's a political move to make the lefties love him more but it sure as hell won't make the Conservatives like him more or back him on anything else he does.
@Shuma: No one cares that you keep finding reasons to attack me and I stopped caring that you do. If it makes your blood flow south to a certain extremity to attack me than I'll let you keep doing it. Just keep it [your extremity] away from me, that's all I've got to say.
Frazzled wrote:Mmm...love the insult. typical. When in doubt attack with personal insults. Goebbels would be proud.
So, if me saying you follow the line of your party is an insult, what is saying I'm following an approach that would make Goebbels proud?
At the time when these statements were being made by the Republicans I thought they were equally stupid.
How many threads did you start on that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Thats a blindingly separate issue. Put them onshore and some judge in some dumpwater berg will say they have rights.
Can't be interrogated for information.
Could potentially be set free.
And let's have a close look at what's being said here, they shouldn't have criminal trials because we can't trust judges to make the right decisions.
Think about that for a while, everyone. Because there are other arguments made about security (as if a military base on foreign soil is going to be more secure to the super mutant powers of the terrorists than a maximum securuty prison in the US) and interrogation (any legal method of interrogation available to the army is available to the FBI, and no-one is arguing for use of illegal methods of interrogation) are self-evidently rubbish, so what we're left with is political pointscoring or a genuine belief that government should be able to imprison people without the review of the judiciary.
The whole thing, quite plainly, is completely messed up. Sickening, really.
Fateweaver wrote:I'm sorry. Detainees at Gitmo have life a lot nicer than any rapist or serial killer detained in any maximum security prison in the US. Got to love the leftist fabrication of the inhumane torture methods used on criminals.
So why the resistance to putting them into supermax?
You want to see inhumane torture watch Hostel or Hostel 2.
The standards for good governance should be to treat people better than the fantasies depicted in torture porn.
In the same way, 9/11 wasn't all that big a deal because Clear and Present Danger had terrorists setting off a nuke.
But hey, terrorists aren't a threat. It's all just right-wing propaganda. We should open our arms to everyone, even the Yemenese or guys like the underwear bomber who are allowed to purchase a one way ticket to the US who also happens to have NO luggage on him, not even a carry-on. Yeah, Napolitano(sp) is right. Our system DOES work. Yeesh.
Arguing that terrorism should be dealt with via, by departments that have spent decades developing the skillsets to locate, capture and prosecute such people does not assume they are not a threat.
Your discussion points above are obviously false and you know this. You obviously have the ability to turn on a computer, log into dakka and type sentences , so you have the intelligence to see what is wrong with your claims above. You owe it to this board and to yourself to put a little thought into what you're posting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:...too busy trying to kiss everyones ass and making sure we are PC about who we profile and who we don't.
Demands over PC are certainly crippling the nation. Just last week someone demanded the resignation of the Chief of Staff because he said 'slowed'.
I for one am sick of Sarah Palin and the rest of the PC nazis.
Back you dastardly villians, your super powers have no worth in my arena. I shall pummel you with self-righteous indignation, and indefinite prison time without trial.
You know, I'm really quite tired of having to correct the fundamental errors that people make when discussing the issues of terrorism. Frazzled is probably the biggest offender, but Mannahin has addressed his errors very well, so I'll only add this:
The underwear bomber, and several of the suspects detained at Gitmo, were already in the United States when they were arrested. They are therefore protected by the Bill of Rights. There is no ambiguity here.
Fateweaver wrote:I guess I'll apologize on behalf of all Americans who love our country for treating anyone who would attempt to harm it's citizens or actually in fact harming it's citizens and toppling one of our great national monuments as scum who should be locked up forever.
That's a strawman. No one here has claimed that someone convicted of terrorism should be dealt with lightly. The only thing that people want to see is a trial before the institution of an indefinite hold.
Fateweaver wrote:
Organizing your entire anti-terrorist operation (which is a joke now) to ensure you stay PC about it and don't step on someone's feet and profile is somehow NOT apologizing to terrorists?
Obama's terrorism policy is almost identical to Bush's, which makes it absolutely hilarious every time Cheney attacks it, as he's essentially attacking everything he advocated.
Fateweaver wrote:
Treating the Yemenese bomber and other terrorists out of Gitmo by closing it down
Gitmo is still open, and there is no hard date for shutting it down.
Fateweaver wrote:
Obamanation does NOT want terrorists or suspected terrorists treated in military courts because he, and others like him, feel empathy toward them and knows they won't get a fair, non-biased trial.
You think they'll get fair, unbiased trials in civilian courts? If anything the military tribunals are more likely to produce honest decisions due to a commitment to fact finding. The trend towards civilian trials is primarily the result of a lack of legislation regarding issues such as this in which the line between civilian, and military justice is blurred. There have been numerous calls to rectify this deficiency, with various proposals floated (personally, I find the idea of POW court with both military and civilian judges to be the best option), but there hasn't been a lot of political will behind any of them.
I missed it the first time but in reading dogma's response to Fateweaver I noticed Fateweaver's claim about Obama feeling empathy towards terrorists. What the hell does that mean?
sebster wrote:I missed it the first time but in reading dogma's response to Fateweaver I noticed Fateweaver's claim about Obama feeling empathy towards terrorists. What the hell does that mean?
Likely about as much as his statement accusing obama of being an apologist towards terrorist nations.
Frazzled wrote:THATS WHY YOU DON"T FRIGGING BRING THE TERRORISTS INTO THE US.
Either we believe in justice, freedom, the rule of law and inalienable human rights or we don’t. Limiting it to people within our geographic borders while taking and holding prisoners on foreign soil (Gitmo, foreign prisons) is just a legalistic dodge for people trying to get away with ignoring our country’s founding principles.
It’s un-American. It’s dishonorable and a stain on our principles. It makes me sick.
bs.
We can believe in those things for ourselves. We can hope others will fight and get theirs. As Iraq and Afghanistan has proven, We can't make a people free. they have to want to do it themselves.
And again none of that has to do with protecting American citizens. None of it. The first role of government is to protect its citizens.
We are no the world's police.
I'm moving on from this topic now.
Evidently not, or maybe some people are unworthy of it at this time. My pessimism at the world has grown considerably over the last few years.
It all started to go wrong with that getting in a fight with the Kaiser thing methinks now.
Who cares. I'm taking GC to the Father Daughter dance tomorrow and shooting the day after. She must learn the Zen of carbine to teach her many tumen this knowledge so that the plundering er, New Order yea New Order may begin. Soon the world will tremble before the might of Genghis Conn(ie) and her Mongol hordes.
L. Paul Bremer, Ronald Reagan's Coordinator for Counterterrorism wrote:Another important measure we have developed in our overall strategy is applying the rule of law to terrorists. Terrorists are criminals. They commit criminal actions like murder, kidnapping, and arson, and countries have laws to punish criminals. So a major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are -- criminals -- and to use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law against them.
If it was good enough for the Reagan administration, why is it not good enough for the Obama administration? Was Reagan wrong?
L. Paul Bremer, Ronald Reagan's Coordinator for Counterterrorism wrote:Another important measure we have developed in our overall strategy is applying the rule of law to terrorists. Terrorists are criminals. They commit criminal actions like murder, kidnapping, and arson, and countries have laws to punish criminals. So a major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are -- criminals -- and to use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law against them.
If it was good enough for the Reagan administration, why is it not good enough for the Obama administration? Was Reagan wrong?
Wait you mean the guy who sent in bombers to have a dialogue with Khadafy and masterfully arranged a Caesaresque war between Iraq and Iran to keep those two a holes balanced against each other? That Reagan? The one who sent arms to rebels in Latin America and Afghanistan?
As Lewis Black says, we need to re-elect the corpse of Reagan. Hoist up the corpse. Because any nation that will celebrate the election of a dead President, is a nation that even the terrorists won't feth with.
Frazzled wrote:bs.
We can believe in those things for ourselves. We can hope others will fight and get theirs. As Iraq and Afghanistan has proven, We can't make a people free. they have to want to do it themselves.
You don't have to free everyone from whatever they suffer, no-one said you did. But that's a long way from imprisoning people without due process and fair trial.
Frazzled wrote:Wait you mean the guy who sent in bombers to have a dialogue with Khadafy and masterfully arranged a Caesaresque war between Iraq and Iran to keep those two a holes balanced against each other? That Reagan? The one who sent arms to rebels in Latin America and Afghanistan?
That's right, so he was hardly soft on terror. And he knew that the best way to deal with terror was to treat them as the criminals they are.
Of course it would be relevant if he actually dealt with terrorists in the US or active wars against same. But he didn't, so although it was a fun stroll down memory lane its utterly irrelevant. I don't think he captured any terrorists either, just retaliated against their sponsors.
Fateweaver wrote:Hmm, you mean the "certain inalienable rights" as pertains to people that are citizens of THIS country.
Last time I checked Yemen is not US owned so therefore Yemenese (ha, that's a cool word) and anyone else that is not a US citizen DO NOT have "inalienable rights". I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights pertains ONLY to this country. If it doesn't I was lied to through all 12 years of school.
I'm sorry. Detainees at Gitmo have life a lot nicer than any rapist or serial killer detained in any maximum security prison in the US. Got to love the leftist fabrication of the inhumane torture methods used on criminals.
You want to see inhumane torture watch Hostel or Hostel 2.
But hey, terrorists aren't a threat. It's all just right-wing propaganda. We should open our arms to everyone, even the Yemenese or guys like the underwear bomber who are allowed to purchase a one way ticket to the US who also happens to have NO luggage on him, not even a carry-on. Yeah, Napolitano(sp) is right. Our system DOES work. Yeesh.
Alright, alright. Now, as Head Cow of DakkDakka.com, i'm gonna weight in with my 2-cents, as is proper:
THese right that in Amercia aren't american rights. Fateweaver, Frazzled, the both of you know this. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, they didn't make this up on the spot. Democracy isn't an American creation, though the both of yoiu (Frazzled and Fateweaver) you seem to think so.
Jean-Jaques-Rosseu, Baron de Montisque, Voltaire, John Locke, they started to think like this during the Enlightenment. The founding fathers took their ideas.
the both of you seem to think that only american citizens get these rights. the both of you probably would have joined the south in full fury during the civil war, with your thinking This is sickening and crap. Voltaire said that the rights of liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, are given to people in this earth. Every person, from terrorist to killer, from thief to molester, every person, whether you are arab or white or black or asain or hispanic, whatever, born on this earth has the rights that are stated in the constitution. I love this country with all my heart. I am blessed to have been born here. For i know even though i have these natural born, god given rights, i know that in america, i am garunteed that no one will stop me from having them. And this really does bring as tear to my eye.
I have been to Jordan, where the Media is censored. To the West Bank, where Israelis and Palestinians clash and kill and hate and consider each otehr scum and subhuman. I've seen infringement of these rights, and it breaks my heart. Fateweaver, Frazzled, these are rights that everyoen desevres, even terrorists. For you to say they are scum, less than human, is a sickening thing. Conservatives are turning more and more ignorant these days, denying anon-citizens and terrorists thier natural rights because they are non-citizens and terrorists. This eye for an eye fort of thing. Mohandis Ghandi said,"an eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind". Thomas jefferson, George washington, Benjamin Franklin would be disappointed in us. How we use politics to deny rights so we can advance froward in congress or in the Presidential campaign.
The both of you are not acting american like. I'm not saying that you are anti-american, as Fateweaver has labeled me in the past, but that what you are doing is not what our founding fathers would want. It saddens me that people use the patriot card to justify denying civil and human liberties to others, to justify torturing fellow human beings.
This thread has has convinced me to do something. As i sit here typing this, it may sound corny, but i don't care. If will do my part, from here on out, to create a free world. to make every country a democracy, or whatever the people want, if they want their kingdom as it is, fine. But i won't see people denyed their rights because of thier acts. Fateweaver, you can call it "holding hands and singing kumbaya", but i call it the duty of every U.S. citizen, hell more, every being on this earth to stop tyranny, and to begin to express themselves freely. My generation (as i am 15 yrs old) must now rise up and begin to help otehrs of this world. We must bring an end to tyrants, people must hold the power, they must be able to make decisions in their gov't, Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for mot just americans, but all peoples of this earth, whites and blacks, Jews, muslims and Christians, all others, we must all consider each otehr brothers and sisters, and create democracies throughout this earth.
Fateweaver, Frazzled, call it what you wnat, but i am 100000% certain, that the founding faters would approve, that they would want all people to be free, secure, and happy.
Wow that was so amazingly misplaced I'd swear you were a reporter.
No one said democracy started here.
No one said human rights started here.
We're saying the US protects the US. Its not the world policeman. We are currently at war. Terrorists are the combatants in that war. They are not criminals. They are combatants.
I'm not for denying any rights to a US citizen. Evidently your skills at reading comprehension need a brush up.
Frazzled wrote:Wow that was so amazingly misplaced I'd swear you were a reporter.
No one said democracy started here.
No one said human rights started here.
We're saying the US protects the US. Its not the world policeman. We are currently at war. Terrorists are the combatants in that war. They are not criminals. They are combatants.
I'm not for denying any rights to a US citizen. Evidently your skills at reading comprehension need a brush up.
What about the rights of non-citizens? don't they deserve the same rights?
Terrorists are the combatants in that war. They are not criminals. They are combatants.
Except the majority of detainees were not combatants. A fact that seems to escape you every time. Are they terrorists if we enter their home under suspicion of weapons holding and take them for questioning, even when we don't find any? You do realize that a considerable number of them have been found innocent of all charges making our military essentially glorified kidnappers.
What about the rights of non-citizens? don't they deserve the same rights?
Frazzled and fateweaver do not believe that they do.
But isn't removing tyrants and dictators part of creating a "free world". If so, then you should want every single terrorist to be killed as they hardly respect any sort of Geneva Convention rules. These guys are a$$hats of the highest quality. They released a video of an american soldier that they had captured close to Christmas. That must of been one swell for Christmas for that guy's family, he had been missing since the summer so all in all they probably killed him by now. Even the substandard treatment captured combatants get at gitmo is above the standards they show our men.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its also hard to know whos a combatant when the enemy wears civilian clothing and uses schools as bunkers.
I'm pretty sure when our Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights there weren't foreigners over in this country blowing gak up.
As I recall at the time the British were about as popular with America as the Iraqi's are with us right now.
I'm sorry but when someone flies a plane into a skyscraper (2 in fact) and/or into the Pentagon and/or tries to blow himself up aboard a plane to Detroit using a bomb hidden in his underwear that person/persons should not have "certain inalienable rights".
You aren't the first to try to convince me. I've dated several liberal minded women; one who works helping "underprivileged youth" and they always tried to convince me that everyone, no matter what they do, should be treated equal. I call bs on that and nothing can be said to change my mind.
I believe in equal rights for citizens of this great country. As Frazz so politely pointed out, and I have to, terrorism is an act of war and terrorists should be tried in a military courtroom in front of a military tribunal, NOT in a civilian courtroom where judge and jury can easily be swayed by the likes of the ACLU (who aren't even allowed to set foot in the courtroom unlike civilian criminal courts) or other nut jobs who think that everyone, no matter what crime they commit should get a fair shake.
Wanting our Overlord to protect it's citizens first and foremost is not anti-American. Wanting to make sure terrorists from within and from without are treated fairly and justly AT the expense of the safety of the citizens of this great country IS un-American. If Akmed wants to rob a liquor store, okay. He gets tried in a civilian criminal court. If Akmed wants to crash a plane into the Sears tower or the Cadillac building, um no. He goes before the military courts AS a military prisoner as that is an act of war.
Frazzled wrote:Wow that was so amazingly misplaced I'd swear you were a reporter.
No one said democracy started here.
No one said human rights started here.
We're saying the US protects the US. Its not the world policeman. We are currently at war. Terrorists are the combatants in that war. They are not criminals. They are combatants.
I'm not for denying any rights to a US citizen. Evidently your skills at reading comprehension need a brush up.
What about the rights of non-citizens? don't they deserve the same rights?
Fateweaver, Frazzled, why don't you think that non-citizens don't deserve rights? Do you think Americans are better than the rest, so we deserve more rights than others? That's what i'm hearing from you, that's what i am interpreting, so if lyou can clarify or correct, please do so.
And Frazzled, FW, it seemed to me that you think the rights ENFORCED, not granted to us by the Constitution, have the Made in the U.S.A. label. That's what I got from you. Every person deserves the rights that is in the Constitution, America just Makes sure they ain't stepped on.
EDIT: the both of you aren't acting amercian. You hide behind a veil of Patriotism when you are both sickening. Shame on the Both of you. To deny any human being their rights is unpatriotis, inhumane, and wrong. You both should be ashamed.
Frazzled wrote:Wow that was so amazingly misplaced I'd swear you were a reporter.
No one said democracy started here.
No one said human rights started here.
We're saying the US protects the US. Its not the world policeman. We are currently at war. Terrorists are the combatants in that war. They are not criminals. They are combatants.
I'm not for denying any rights to a US citizen. Evidently your skills at reading comprehension need a brush up.
What about the rights of non-citizens? don't they deserve the same rights?
Not if they are attacking us.
Frazz, I think you and I missed the memo stating that terrorists who blow up buildings over here and crash planes into skyscrapers have the same rights that you and I do.
Then again I think back to what happened to Tim McVeigh in civilian prison and well, his prison life was short. Though IMO he should have had one put to the back of the dome WITHOUT trial but that's in the past.
isthatmycow wrote:Fateweaver, Frazzled, why don't you think that non-citizens don't deserve rights? Do you think Americans are better than the rest, so we deserve more rights than others? That's what i'm hearing from you, that's what i am interpreting, so if lyou can clarify or correct, please do so.
And Frazzled, FW, it seemed to me that you think the rights ENFORCED, not granted to us by the Constitution, have the Made in the U.S.A. label. That's what I got from you. Every person deserves the rights that is in the Constitution, America just Makes sure they ain't stepped on.
America only has a duty to make sure the rights of US CITIZENS aren't stepped on. We have no duty to anyone else.
Frazzled wrote:
I'm not for denying any rights to a US citizen. Evidently your skills at reading comprehension need a brush up.
You are attempting to deny rights to people living on US soil, which is effectively the same thing given the nature of US law. Law which could easily be rectified by the passage of simply legislation. Much of what seems to irritates people isn't that the military is involved, but that they are involved in an extrajudicial capacity.
In any case, you are attempting to deny people the rights they are granted under the Geneva Conventions, both by a denial of the US signatory status, and the apparent ignorance of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Even the DoD has officially considered terrorist suspects apprehended after June '08 as enemy combatants.
isthatmycow wrote:I didn't say kill them, i said remove. you can remove someone from power without killing them. Hell, you can do it without war.
Really? how is that again?
Ghandi did it, i think.
Ghandi? How'd it work for Hitler. How about those guys running Sudan? How about the Taliban? How about Cousescu, Pol Pot, Samosa on and on and on and on.
Frazz, I think you and I missed the memo stating that terrorists who blow up buildings over here and crash planes into skyscrapers have the same rights that you and I do.
Yeah, it's called the magna carta and U.S. law. Things you both seem to have never heard about. Heres an idea, how about you both move to south korea. You would love it there, and it seems to be the perfect fit for your kind of governance and justice.
Frazz, I think you and I missed the memo stating that terrorists who blow up buildings over here and crash planes into skyscrapers have the same rights that you and I do.
Yeah, it's called the magna carta and U.S. law. Things you both seem to have never heard about. Heres an idea, how about you both move to south korea. You would love it there, and it seems to be the perfect fit for your kind of governance and justice.
Frazzled wrote:
...How about those guys running Sudan?...How about the Taliban?...
Most of the Taliban switched their allegiance to the Northern Alliance when placed under pressure. The Sudanese government is using aggressive counter-terrorist action to stop a group that uses deplorable tactics; becoming equally deplorable in the process.
Frazz, I think you and I missed the memo stating that terrorists who blow up buildings over here and crash planes into skyscrapers have the same rights that you and I do.
Yeah, it's called the magna carta and U.S. law. Things you both seem to have never heard about. Heres an idea, how about you both move to south korea. You would love it there, and it seems to be the perfect fit for your kind of governance and justice.
But then you would miss me Shuma
Nah, I'm sure I would see you all the time on TV after you were picked up by government forces for terrorism and spying, and then tortured and imprisoned without trial for an indefinite period of time. The U.S. hates it when countries do that after all.
Frazz, I think you and I missed the memo stating that terrorists who blow up buildings over here and crash planes into skyscrapers have the same rights that you and I do.
Yeah, it's called the magna carta and U.S. law. Things you both seem to have never heard about. Heres an idea, how about you both move to south korea. You would love it there, and it seems to be the perfect fit for your kind of governance and justice.
But then you would miss me Shuma
Nah, I'm sure I would see you all the time on TV after you were picked up by government forces for terrorism and spying, and then tortured and imprisoned without trial for an indefinite period of time. The U.S. hates it when countries do that after all.
Dude I work for a living, am married with a teenager only a year or two younger than you. You act like I would even notice.
As we all know the 9/11 hijackers and the Detroit underwear bomber weren't ON US soil; they were up in the air when they did what they did so by RAW the Magna Carta and the Constitution don't apply to them.
Why? I'm the one espousing the American ideals of freedom, justice, the rule of law, and the rights of man here.
I'll even buy you the one way ticket out of here.
I thought you were out of money?
As we all know the 9/11 hijackers and the Detroit underwear bomber weren't ON US soil; they were up in the air when they did what they did so by RAW the Magna Carta and the Constitution don't apply to them.
I'm pretty sure the magna carta doesn't have elevation restrictions written in it.
It could be said that the MC could be permissive; if it was meant to apply to land, sea and air it would say so. It only applies to people on US soil. Soil =/= sea or air.
To get you out of the US I'd come up with the money. Granted you'd fly in the cheap seats but whatever.
Ah yes, rights of others at the expense of the safety of our own. Great thinking that is. The freedom of terrorists at the expense of our national security.
Why? I'm the one espousing the American ideals of freedom, justice, the rule of law, and the rights of man here.
Really? Agree with me or leave?
It was a friendly suggestion, I just thought you would be a lot happier there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ah yes, rights of others at the expense of the safety of our own. Great thinking that is. The freedom of terrorists at the expense of our national security.
Fateweaver wrote:
As we all know the 9/11 hijackers and the Detroit underwear bomber weren't ON US soil; they were up in the air when they did what they did...
US airspace is US soil. Even if it weren't, the underwear bomber did eventually land to be apprehended.
The 9/11 plotters that we arrested were not in the air at any time.
JohnHwangDD wrote:I just wish the US would "nut up" and not dick around at Gitmo. If these are bad people, follow the UCMJ and shoot them. If not, let them go.
That's about how I feel. Set a policy, and follow it.
So the underwear bomber is not a terrorist until proven by courts he is guilty? What of the many people on the plane who witnessed it? What about the guy who confronted him and got him down until the plane landed and Feds arrived?
That's proof enough. It doesn't NEED a court to prove he is.
I'm confused Shuma. It seems to me you are in favor of civilian over military courts but you seem to think the outcome will be the same. If you feel that way then why not just let them be tried in front of the military tribunal?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:
As we all know the 9/11 hijackers and the Detroit underwear bomber weren't ON US soil; they were up in the air when they did what they did...
US airspace is US soil. Even if it weren't, the underwear bomber did eventually land to be apprehended.
The 9/11 plotters that we arrested were not in the air at any time.
JohnHwangDD wrote:I just wish the US would "nut up" and not dick around at Gitmo. If these are bad people, follow the UCMJ and shoot them. If not, let them go.
That's about how I feel. Set a policy, and follow it.
RAI that is true; RAW does only mention US soil. Soil =/= sea or air. I'm no biologist but I'm pretty sure dirt is not the same as water or air.
So the underwear bomber is not a terrorist until proven by courts he is guilty? What of the many people on the plane who witnessed it? What about the guy who confronted him and got him down until the plane landed and Feds arrived?
That makes it an open and shut case.
That's proof enough. It doesn't NEED a court to prove he is.
It really does though according to our laws. The ones you seem to want violated for a reason you have yet to state.
I'm confused Shuma.
Stop the presses.
It seems to me you are in favor of civilian over military courts but you seem to think the outcome will be the same. If you feel that way then why not just let them be tried in front of the military tribunal?
I don't believe that they are enemy combatants, I believe that they are foreign criminals. Military tribunals are secretive and highly inefficient when handling non military matters, as their record at guantanamo shows. Were the military tribunals more transparent and effective I wouldn't really mind, considering they aren't U.S. citizens, but they aren't and given the considerable lack of transparency, the presence of repeated uses of torture on innocent civilians, and the clear lack of respect for human rights and international law I simply don't trust them enough to represent America in that way.
RAI that is true; RAW does only mention US soil. Soil =/= sea or air. I'm no biologist but I'm pretty sure dirt is not the same as water or air.
Or pavement, tiling, or carpet. A majority of crimes are not commited in grassy fields.
America imposed the rights of men who weren't trying to kill the innocent.
We have a jail in america where the prisoners live in tents outside and wear pink undergarments while the detainees we have live in a prison comparable to other american prisons. How come they can't live in tents outside either?
In my books a terrorist is a person who denounces allegiance to their own country and therefor doesn't deserve Geneva Convention treatment.
As to some of those people being found innocent and released are actual terrorists who later return to terrorism.
As to some of those people being found innocent and released are actual terrorists who later return to terrorism.
And most aren't. Which is more valuable, holding one true radical terrorist or unlawfully imprisoning five civilians away from their families indefinitely.
Fateweaver wrote:
So the underwear bomber is not a terrorist until proven by courts he is guilty? What of the many people on the plane who witnessed it? What about the guy who confronted him and got him down until the plane landed and Feds arrived?
That's proof enough. It doesn't NEED a court to prove he is.
Under US law it goes to court, regardless of witnesses.
Fateweaver wrote:
I'm confused Shuma. It seems to me you are in favor of civilian over military courts but you seem to think the outcome will be the same. If you feel that way then why not just let them be tried in front of the military tribunal?
Because, in this instance, its against the law. You don't get to apply the law selectively. Not without legal stipulations to the contrary.
Fateweaver wrote:
RAI that is true; RAW does only mention US soil. Soil =/= sea or air. I'm no biologist but I'm pretty sure dirt is not the same as water or air.
Legally US soil is simply treated as US territory; including airspace and territorial waters. Its not a rules as intended argument, its an argument from jurisprudence. A very sensible one as the founders would have had no understanding of either territorial waters, or airspace.
halonachos wrote:
In my books a terrorist is a person who denounces allegiance to their own country and therefor doesn't deserve Geneva Convention treatment.
Geneva Conventions also cover non-international conflicts, though not in full. One of the few prohibitions presented in Common Article 3 is against murder, and another is against torture.
As we all know the 9/11 hijackers and the Detroit underwear bomber weren't ON US soil; they were up in the air when they did what they did so by RAW the Magna Carta and the Constitution don't apply to them.
The law of the country where the airline is based obtains on airliners in the air, except where it is outranked by international law. Same with ships.
I loved the part where Fateweaver said the Magna Carta only applies on US soil. He has never made more clear that he literally has no idea what he's talking about.
He's never read a book about our government or legal system. He paid no attention in school. He can't even be bothered to check wikipedia. He just listens to Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin and watches Fox News and lets those ideas percolate in his head and defecate out of his mouth and onto this board via his keyboard.
Oh my Lord Mann, it's even sadder that you and others take me seriously about my RAW vs RAI of where the Magna Carta applies.
I figured people could figure out the sarcasm for themselves when I started mentioning the RAW vs RAI of "on US soil".
Got to love how mods attack people. Nice on Mann. If I made that exact same post toward another poster I'd get a warning. Perhaps you should warn yourself?
I don't listen to Rush or Sarah and I don't watch the news. Not to mention Liberals LOVE to watch NBC and the Daily Show 'cuz you know they is right about them damn foreigners being treated unfairly and we should treat them as well as we do our own citizens.
I paid attention in History class but only when it pertained to the US kicking ass (like the Revo war, WW1 and WW2) and not to feel good bs like "we need to treat foreigners with dignity and respect even when they try to kill US citizens".
Fateweaver wrote:Oh my Lord Mann, it's even sadder that you and others take me seriously about my RAW vs RAI of where the Magna Carta applies.
I figured people could figure out the sarcasm for themselves when I started mentioning the RAW vs RAI of "on US soil".
Got to love how mods attack people. Nice on Mann. If I made that exact same post toward another poster I'd get a warning. Perhaps you should warn yourself?
I don't listen to Rush or Sarah and I don't watch the news. Not to mention Liberals LOVE to watch NBC and the Daily Show 'cuz you know they is right about them damn foreigners being treated unfairly and we should treat them as well as we do our own citizens.
I paid attention in History class but only when it pertained to the US kicking ass (like the Revo war, WW1 and WW2) and not to feel good bs like "we need to treat foreigners with dignity and respect even when they try to kill US citizens".
So you are full of total bs. You listen to what you wanna hear, America does good, but turn a blind eye when they do illegal acts. Thats Absolutely teriffic. You are uninformed.
When someone performs an illegal act against us it is horrible that we keep those same people in a white collar resort sucking tax payer dollars away while they await trial?
If Gitmo is so horrible and illegal than why is it JUST now that it's on the verge of being closed down. Clinton was liberal and he didn't see the wrong in it; so was Carter.
Surely if it was so illegal what we were doing it would have been brought up before the SJC decades ago?
Fateweaver wrote:When someone performs an illegal act against us it is horrible that we keep those same people in a white collar resort sucking tax payer dollars away while they await trial?
If Gitmo is so horrible and illegal than why is it JUST now that it's on the verge of being closed down. Clinton was liberal and he didn't see the wrong in it; so was Carter.
Surely if it was so illegal what we were doing it would have been brought up before the SJC decades ago?
When you say Gitmo do you refer to the US base at Guantanano Bay, or the detention camp inside the base?
Fateweaver wrote:When someone performs an illegal act against us it is horrible that we keep those same people in a white collar resort sucking tax payer dollars away while they await trial?
If Gitmo is so horrible and illegal than why is it JUST now that it's on the verge of being closed down. Clinton was liberal and he didn't see the wrong in it; so was Carter.
Surely if it was so illegal what we were doing it would have been brought up before the SJC decades ago?
When you say Gitmo do you refer to the US base at Guantanano Bay, or the detention camp inside the base?
The detention camp I assume is where the terrorists are being held.
Frazzled wrote:Everyone does realize the Magna Carta is utterly irrelevant and has no standing at all in the US right?
The tragic humor being that FW literally had no idea.
But it’s not irrelevant at all. It’s a foundational document for modern, western democratic civilization, and for Habeus Corpus. We are trying to protect our civilization, right? We consider ours better because we believe in freedom, and in human rights, no?
Fateweaver wrote:When someone performs an illegal act against us it is horrible that we keep those same people in a white collar resort sucking tax payer dollars away while they await trial?
If Gitmo is so horrible and illegal than why is it JUST now that it's on the verge of being closed down. Clinton was liberal and he didn't see the wrong in it; so was Carter.
Surely if it was so illegal what we were doing it would have been brought up before the SJC decades ago?
You are incredible.
IT'S NOT THE EXISTENCE OF A LEASED BASE ON FOREIGN SOIL THAT'S THE DARN PROBLEM. IT'S USING THAT BASE AS A PLACE TO HOLD PRISONERS AND THEN CLAIMING THAT THIS SOMEHOW EXEMPTS THOSE PRISONERS FROM THE PROTECTIONS OF US LAW.
Fateweaver wrote:When someone performs an illegal act against us it is horrible that we keep those same people in a white collar resort sucking tax payer dollars away while they await trial?
If Gitmo is so horrible and illegal than why is it JUST now that it's on the verge of being closed down. Clinton was liberal and he didn't see the wrong in it; so was Carter.
Surely if it was so illegal what we were doing it would have been brought up before the SJC decades ago?
When you say Gitmo do you refer to the US base at Guantanano Bay, or the detention camp inside the base?
The detention camp I assume is where the terrorists are being held.
Then the reason why Clinton and Carter didn't speak out against it is probably because it was established during the Bush II presidency in 2002.
It was brought up before the Supreme Court in 2006. They ruled that the prisoners were entitled to protection under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
Fateweaver wrote:
I paid attention in History class but only when it pertained to the US kicking ass (like the Revo war, WW1 and WW2) and not to feel good bs like "we need to treat foreigners with dignity and respect even when they try to kill US citizens".
So, the least accurate parts are the ones you remember. Well, actually, that's not fair. Pretty much all of high school history is inaccurate, or full of holes.
The darn problem is us kissing the ass of foreign nationals and foreign countries and the resultant ass kissing is making terrorists nations bolder.
I don't give a goddamn that some document penned in 1215 led to some document that had prudence in 1776. As far as I am concerned if you aren't a legal citizen of the US and you commit crimes against the US you should not expect protection under the same set of laws and rights US citizens have. If humanitarians don't like it tough gak. The Bill and Constitution were not penned with humanitarians and civil rights leaders in mind; they were also not penned under the premise that 200+ years later people from other countries would be crashing planes into towers or trying to blow them apart in midair.
We aren't the bully country lots of other countries pen us as. We are the skinny nerd weakling shoved into lockers and pushed down onto the ground because the ones doing the bullying know they can get away with it because we won't fight back.
I'm done. Self-serving liberals will continue to pat their own backs and congratulate themselves on making wrongs right totally forgetting that had these extremists who hate the West and want to exterminate us (big news flash for some people on here I know) had NOT attacked us or engineered attacks on the US would NOT be getting tortured and would not be sitting in prison.
You break the goddamn law (and terrorism is an illegal act as well) you suffer the goddamn consequences.
I tire of humanitarian and libertarian bs. The same lot of you defending terrorists defend child molesters and rapists. I don't agree with that line of thought.
Had I been on that plane to Detroit that underwear bomber would have gotten stomped with a size 13 boot until his brain ceased to function. See, that is me doing my part to ensure fair justice in the US.
Fateweaver wrote:The Bill and Constitution were not penned with humanitarians and civil rights leaders in mind; they were also not penned under the premise that 200+ years later people from other countries would be crashing planes into towers or trying to blow them apart in midair.
Indeed. Or under the premise that people would be able to own rapid firing and much more deadly guns either, but apparently ...
I appreciate your effort to consult wikipedia this time. This post was more cogent than usual, even if I utterly disagree with most of it.
I love this country, and think it's the best one on Earth. The only reason I feel that I can say that is because of the principles upon which it was founded and the system of government we have.
If we can’t stand up for human rights while defending ourselves, we don’t deserve our liberty or our lives, as good ol’ Ben Franklin rightly observed back in the day. I reject the argument that because Ben Franklin never saw a plane flown into a building that he didn’t know what he was talking about.
Character is who you are in the dark. It’s easy to have principles and believe in something when there’s nothing riding on it. When it’s “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” on the line, that’s when you prove who you are as a person or a nation. People always argue in times of war or hardship that we can’t afford the luxury of upholding our principles. Those people are weak and cowardly, in my opinion.
Fateweaver wrote:The darn problem is us kissing the ass of foreign nationals and foreign countries and the resultant ass kissing is making terrorists nations bolder.
What terrorist nations? There aren't any. I mean, you could count Iran as a terrorist supporter, but there aren't any nations that are composed of terrorists.
Fateweaver wrote:
We aren't the bully country lots of other countries pen us as. We are the skinny nerd weakling shoved into lockers and pushed down onto the ground because the ones doing the bullying know they can get away with it because we won't fight back.
We're fighting two war right now.
Fateweaver wrote:
I'm done. Self-serving liberals will continue to pat their own backs and congratulate themselves on making wrongs right totally forgetting that had these extremists who hate the West and want to exterminate us (big news flash for some people on here I know) had NOT attacked us or engineered attacks on the US would NOT be getting tortured and would not be sitting in prison.
No one is defending terrorists, or pretending that what they do is right. The only argument here is over how we should process suspected terrorists.
Fateweaver wrote:
You break the goddamn law (and terrorism is an illegal act as well) you suffer the goddamn consequences.
Yes, and we're debating how to best process people who are alleged to have broken the law.
Fateweaver wrote:
I tire of humanitarian and libertarian bs. The same lot of you defending terrorists defend child molesters and rapists. I don't agree with that line of thought.
Defending a person alleged of a crime is not the same defending someone who has been convicted of a crime, and even that is not a certain standard.
Fateweaver wrote:
Had I been on that plane to Detroit that underwear bomber would have gotten stomped with a size 13 boot until his brain ceased to function. See, that is me doing my part to ensure fair justice in the US.
I'm not going to argue with 2 mods even if I'm partly right. That just leads to bad things happening.
You believe what you will, I believe what I will. I don't believe that non-citizens, regardless of what any piece of paper says, should have equal rights as citizens; just like red and other anti-gun people feel the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it means or it should be amended to mean something differently.
You won't change my mind. My idea of justice for terrorists and rapists and child molesters is a .45 to the back of the skull where the spinal cord meets the brain stem; not white collar resorts.
I'm not going to argue with 2 mods even if I'm partly right.
So what will you do currently, when you are not only wrong, but mind-bendingly misinformed? If thats what you do under optimal circumstances I'm interested to see how you'll react during the current, less than ideal ones.
Fateweaver wrote:The darn problem is us kissing the ass of foreign nationals and foreign countries and the resultant ass kissing is making terrorists nations bolder.
Fateweaver wrote:I'm not going to argue with 2 mods even if I'm partly right. That just leads to bad things happening.
You believe what you will, I believe what I will. I don't believe that non-citizens, regardless of what any piece of paper says, should have equal rights as citizens; just like red and other anti-gun people feel the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it means or it should be amended to mean something differently.
You won't change my mind. My idea of justice for terrorists and rapists and child molesters is a .45 to the back of the skull where the spinal cord meets the brain stem; not white collar resorts.
Red's not a Mod, he just plays one on TV.
When we're not in offical mod mode we can arguie and be argued with like everyone else. Except Alpharius, he's just scary. Lorek sounds scary but he's just drunk (again).
now that i think about it...
Frazzled- Crystal meth and hershey bars
Mannahin- sock puppets
Lorek-booze or failing that, sterno
Redsyn- binder clips (small size only SMALL SIZE ONLYYY!!!)
Alpharius-world domination one horseradish at a time
Insaniak-cute kittens and cheese whiz. occasionally electricity. malfred-socks
Killkrazy-Japanese lacquer (sniffing it that is)
Jin/Ketara-insider trading.
and of course yakface/legoburner-restoring the the greater glory of Cthulu.
there's more but I would just be talking out of school.
Fateweaver wrote:The darn problem is us kissing the ass of foreign nationals and foreign countries and the resultant ass kissing is making terrorists nations bolder.
What, bolder than flying two planes into The World Trade Center, and one into The Pentagon? That's pretty bold, mate. Just saying.
Carnation Revolution in Portugal
People Power Revolution in the Phillipines
Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia
Bulgarian Revolution
The Singing Revolution in the Balkans
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:Frazz, I think you and I missed the memo stating that terrorists who blow up buildings over here and crash planes into skyscrapers have the same rights that you and I do.
So who decides who gets any rights at all, who gets some, and who gets none?
Well so far Obamanation is deciding everyone is on equal footing.
That the underwear bomber has as many and equal rights as a man that holds up a liquor store or a gas station.
Sure the obvious outcome will be vastly different, maybe, but that doesn't excuse the fact that this country is kissing the underwear bombers ass to make itself look good to the rest of the world.
Lets not fear though. According to the moron who is our SoD we had the situation under control and the system works. Explain how the system worked to let a foreigner buy a one way ticket with cash who happened to have not a single piece of luggage and he wasn't looked at twice or questioned?
Oh yeah. Forgot. To question a person twice about their purposes for doing such a thing as he did would be profiling and we can't allow that to happen.
Fateweaver wrote:Well so far Obamanation is deciding everyone is on equal footing.
You know, that joke really lacks any kick right? I have been trying to find good images for it, and there really isn't any. Bush lent himself to parody, and possibly kick-started many a comedians career (and I am sure they thank him for that). Obama on the other hand, really doesn't lend himself to these accusations, thus lessening the actual value in that joke.
Change we can believe in.
Obamanation.
That parody counter sucks... I really think you need some new writers man.
So the underwear bomber is not a terrorist until proven by courts he is guilty? What of the many people on the plane who witnessed it? What about the guy who confronted him and got him down until the plane landed and Feds arrived?
That's proof enough. It doesn't NEED a court to prove he is.
So, you're saying that if you feel a case is really obvious a trial shouldn't be needed? Of course, it wouldn't actually be you making the decision, it'd be someone in government. Are you saying that if some government dude was really confident of someone's guilt he could decide the punishment himself?
Because that's what we're talking about here, the ability of government to punish someone without any oversight from the judiciary. The places where that's happened in the past have been bad places.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:When someone performs an illegal act against us it is horrible that we keep those same people in a white collar resort sucking tax payer dollars away while they await trial?
That's the basic idea behind justice, yes. Is it just terrorism that you can't stand to spend money on? What about rape, what about manslaughter, corporate fraud or unpaid parking tickets?
And why are you pretending that a military trial would be any cheaper?
If Gitmo is so horrible and illegal than why is it JUST now that it's on the verge of being closed down. Clinton was liberal and he didn't see the wrong in it; so was Carter.
Because Guantanamo under Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter etc... was a naval facility. It still is, by the way. Under Bush II a small portion of the base was turned into a detention camp. This is basic stuff, dude, really basic stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:You break the goddamn law (and terrorism is an illegal act as well) you suffer the goddamn consequences.
Yes, because the law is an important thing. All we're saying is that government should follow the law as well.
I tire of humanitarian and libertarian bs. The same lot of you defending terrorists defend child molesters and rapists. I don't agree with that line of thought.
That's a crap argument. Not as crap as the one about Carter being alright with Gitmo, but not far behind. There is a basic difference between defending someone and believing they're entitled to a fair trial. It's the difference between a revenge posse and justice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:I don't believe that non-citizens, regardless of what any piece of paper says, should have equal rights as citizens; just like red and other anti-gun people feel the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it means or it should be amended to mean something differently.
What rights does a US citizen have when arrested in Thailand?
You break the law anywhere, don't care who you are you serve the time.
Anyone reading my posts knows my stance on rape and child molestation. They should get what terrorists get. Lead poisoning.
Our system is flawed and a good lawyer knows how to use that flaw to get their clients off (O.J anyone). It is why men who rob liquor stores at gun point go to prison for 5 years for armed robbery but a drug dealer caught with $10,000 worth of coke on him gets probation or at most a similar sentence. Make the man who robbed the liquor store work off his debt to society and put a bullet in the brain of the coke dealer.
I like the Tx and FL brand of justice. You murder someone you die yourself. You rape a grown woman or a child yourself you get max sentence possible. You kidnap or abduct someone you probably won't ever be a free man. Clean, simple and right to the point.
Fateweaver wrote:
Our system is flawed and a good lawyer knows how to use that flaw to get their clients off (O.J anyone). It is why men who rob liquor stores at gun point go to prison for 5 years for armed robbery but a drug dealer caught with $10,000 worth of coke on him gets probation or at most a similar sentence. Make the man who robbed the liquor store work off his debt to society and put a bullet in the brain of the coke dealer.
That's a dispute with regards to what you feel to be appropriate sentences, not a dispute over whether or not every person charged with a crime should get a trial. Personally, I think you're far too irrational to have anything approaching a legitimate say with respect to the matter of punishment. However, you are entitled to form an opinion.
Fateweaver wrote:
I like the Tx and FL brand of justice. You murder someone you die yourself. You rape a grown woman or a child yourself you get max sentence possible. You kidnap or abduct someone you probably won't ever be a free man. Clean, simple and right to the point.
This has nothing to do with anything discussed in this thread. Again, you have demonstrated a lack of the sort of reasoning ability required for your opinion to carry weight.
Crimson Devil wrote:You want revenge, not justice. And what would you do in the case of an innocent person wrongly convicted or shot in your world?
More revenge?
Can we put down a divider here? What if we have all issues pertaining to those captured in combat on one side and those that get the door of their house kicked in and have weapons in their house on the other side, and the guys who have their doors kicked in but have no evidence of crime in the house on another.
In which case the answer to all three would be(in respect of order), death, death, and trial.
That the underwear bomber has as many and equal rights as a man that holds up a liquor store or a gas station.
Sure the obvious outcome will be vastly different, maybe, but that doesn't excuse the fact that this country is kissing the underwear bombers ass to make itself look good to the rest of the world.
Or that we follow our own laws, and use our own system rather than porkbarreling a giant base in cuba while lying to our own public for six years about it.
Lets not fear though. According to the moron who is our SoD we had the situation under control and the system works. Explain how the system worked to let a foreigner buy a one way ticket with cash who happened to have not a single piece of luggage and he wasn't looked at twice or questioned?
Welcome to suicide terrorism. You can't stop it with force and more security because you can't look over everyones should every second on every country in the world.
Oh yeah. Forgot. To question a person twice about their purposes for doing such a thing as he did would be profiling and we can't allow that to happen.
Yes, because terrorists all look like young black dudes with nice clothes and glasses and who are sons of doctors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
None of ours and you know what? Too bad on them.
You break the law anywhere, don't care who you are you serve the time.
You bitched a whole lot about evil Iran for capturing those yachters in its waters didn't you?
Anyone reading my posts knows my stance on rape and child molestation. They should get what terrorists get. Lead poisoning.
Anyone who reads your posts knows you also just want them captured tortured and killed on suspicion without trial because you trust the victims recollection so much that you can't even be bothered to gather a little bit a of DNA and go through a trial. Hell, I could accuse you of rape right now and you would have to support your own execution tonight.
Our system is flawed and a good lawyer knows how to use that flaw to get their clients off (O.J anyone). It is why men who rob liquor stores at gun point go to prison for 5 years for armed robbery but a drug dealer caught with $10,000 worth of coke on him gets probation or at most a similar sentence. Make the man who robbed the liquor store work off his debt to society and put a bullet in the brain of the coke dealer.
Thats pretty dependent on the state, holding 10,000 dollars worth of cocaine with the intent to sell is a pretty hefty jail sentence in most though. Not that you ever know what you're talking about.
I like the Tx and FL brand of justice. You murder someone you die yourself. You rape a grown woman or a child yourself you get max sentence possible. You kidnap or abduct someone you probably won't ever be a free man. Clean, simple and right to the point.
Except thats not how it works in those two states. Availability of death penalty doesn't invalidate the concept of manslaughter in them, and rape as a crime is incredibly varied and has a significant number of varying penalties depending on the situation and precedent. What you want is to live in is fething somalia.
Crimson Devil wrote:You want revenge, not justice. And what would you do in the case of an innocent person wrongly convicted or shot in your world?
More revenge?
Can we put down a divider here? What if we have all issues pertaining to those captured in combat on one side and those that get the door of their house kicked in and have weapons in their house on the other side, and the guys who have their doors kicked in but have no evidence of crime in the house on another.
In which case the answer to all three would be(in respect of order), death, death, and trial.
And who exactly would you trust with this ability? All of the organizations capable of this are susceptible to corruption. What is to keep them from kicking down your door? And how will you defend yourself when the Cops or Army say you are a Terrorist? On the brightside, your "kill'em" solution won't trouble you long.
That the underwear bomber has as many and equal rights as a man that holds up a liquor store or a gas station.
Sure the obvious outcome will be vastly different, maybe, but that doesn't excuse the fact that this country is kissing the underwear bombers ass to make itself look good to the rest of the world.
Or that we follow our own laws, and use our own system rather than porkbarreling a giant base in cuba while lying to our own public for six years about it.
Lets not fear though. According to the moron who is our SoD we had the situation under control and the system works. Explain how the system worked to let a foreigner buy a one way ticket with cash who happened to have not a single piece of luggage and he wasn't looked at twice or questioned?
Welcome to suicide terrorism. You can't stop it with force and more security because you can't look over everyones should every second on every country in the world.
Oh yeah. Forgot. To question a person twice about their purposes for doing such a thing as he did would be profiling and we can't allow that to happen.
Yes, because terrorists all look like young black dudes with nice clothes and glasses and who are sons of doctors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
None of ours and you know what? Too bad on them.
You break the law anywhere, don't care who you are you serve the time.
You bitched a whole lot about evil Iran for capturing those yachters in its waters didn't you?
Anyone reading my posts knows my stance on rape and child molestation. They should get what terrorists get. Lead poisoning.
Anyone who reads your posts knows you also just want them captured tortured and killed on suspicion without trial because you trust the victims recollection so much that you can't even be bothered to gather a little bit a of DNA and go through a trial. Hell, I could accuse you of rape right now and you would have to support your own execution tonight.
Our system is flawed and a good lawyer knows how to use that flaw to get their clients off (O.J anyone). It is why men who rob liquor stores at gun point go to prison for 5 years for armed robbery but a drug dealer caught with $10,000 worth of coke on him gets probation or at most a similar sentence. Make the man who robbed the liquor store work off his debt to society and put a bullet in the brain of the coke dealer.
Thats pretty dependent on the state, holding 10,000 dollars worth of cocaine with the intent to sell is a pretty hefty jail sentence in most though. Not that you ever know what you're talking about.
I like the Tx and FL brand of justice. You murder someone you die yourself. You rape a grown woman or a child yourself you get max sentence possible. You kidnap or abduct someone you probably won't ever be a free man. Clean, simple and right to the point.
Except thats not how it works in those two states. Availability of death penalty doesn't invalidate the concept of manslaughter in them, and rape as a crime is incredibly varied and has a significant number of varying penalties depending on the situation and precedent. What you want is to live in is fething somalia.
Nope. Never bitched and whined about prisoners in Iran waters or whatever. Try again.
The excuse we can't stop every person at the airports is just that. An excuse. It was a major security lapse for whatever reason to let a foreigner on a plane to Detroit, buying a one way ticket with cash who had no luggage. That right their should have raised red flags with ANYONE half competent at doing their job. Call it profiling or whatever but it was a security snafu and even the administration finally admitted it was.
Nope. Never bitched and whined about prisoners in Iran waters or whatever. Try again.
Quite right, my apologies, I remembered empchild but thought it was you. You're often pretty close in viewpoints.
The excuse we can't stop every person at the airports is just that. An excuse.
Well that and a relative reality of air travel. We can't strip search and do a chemical analysis of every single person that takes a flight. Logistically it would be incredibly difficult to implement, legally even more so, and quite honestly that doesn't stop a suicide bomber from just walking into a crowded airport full of security lines and blowing himself up in the crowd anyway. It was an intelligence slip up of homeland security for not connecting the dots, but not really a security one. The airport followed procedures.
That right their should have raised red flags with ANYONE half competent at doing their job.
I would want to see how often that actually occurs before calling people incompetent. There are plenty of reasons to travel light, and traveling to a foreign country is hardly rare.
Call it profiling or whatever but it was a security snafu and even the administration finally admitted it was.
True, and he was pretty easy to spot if they knew what to look for. It's not really profiling though, since he was neither the nationality, nor age demographic, nor race typically thought of as being "profile worthy". At this point you're just profiling everyone thats not white considering Latinos are profiled for drug trafficking, arabs are profile for terrorism, and now black dudes would be profiled for both.
Fateweaver, the following is not in any way intended as a personal attack, but I'm a little confused about your personal/politcal views - in fact, I think a few people are and this leading to some misunderstandings and bad feeling in both this, and other threads. Here's how I see it, from what I've gleaned in my short time on Dakka:
You believe in de-centralised, 'smaller' government that has less power over it's citizens lives.
This government which excercises less power over citizens lives, should be able to kill it's citizens for raping and murdering one another. You've expressed a desire that Police Officers should have powers of summary execution.
The state should be able to torture citizens of other countries, and subject them to indefinite internment without trial arbitrarily. All human rights are to be denied to enemies of the state. And burglars. And possibly snowball-fighters .
You also believe in more democracy. Or less.
Poor people should recieve no assistance from the state.
You believe in an Ultra-Nationalist foreign policy which agressively pursues american interests overseas. And Isolationism.
halonachos wrote:Most of them are used for propaganda and then killed to begin with.
That's not the question that was asked. The question that asked was: is it acceptable for terrorists to kill captured American soldiers?
Our soldiers aren't criminals in most cases. If our men were strapping bombs to themselves and killing civilians then yes I would allow it, however, we try to punish those who murder any civvies in our army.
The men we are fighting aren't soldiers, they're criminals. Imagine the US forces as SWAT and the terrorists as violent offenders.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson Devil wrote:
halonachos wrote:
Crimson Devil wrote:You want revenge, not justice. And what would you do in the case of an innocent person wrongly convicted or shot in your world?
More revenge?
Can we put down a divider here? What if we have all issues pertaining to those captured in combat on one side and those that get the door of their house kicked in and have weapons in their house on the other side, and the guys who have their doors kicked in but have no evidence of crime in the house on another.
In which case the answer to all three would be(in respect of order), death, death, and trial.
And who exactly would you trust with this ability? All of the organizations capable of this are susceptible to corruption. What is to keep them from kicking down your door? And how will you defend yourself when the Cops or Army say you are a Terrorist? On the brightside, your "kill'em" solution won't trouble you long.
Easy, I've never said anything anti-american, just look at other posts. I don't have any explosives in my house and my weapons are safely stored with the bolts removed, I pay my taxes and want to join the air force. I think that I'm in the clear when it comes to being convicted of terrorism.
Albatross wrote:Fateweaver, the following is not in any way intended as a personal attack, but I'm a little confused about your personal/politcal views - in fact, I think a few people are and this leading to some misunderstandings and bad feeling in both this, and other threads. Here's how I see it, from what I've gleaned in my short time on Dakka:
You believe in de-centralised, 'smaller' government that has less power over it's citizens lives.
This government which excercises less power over citizens lives, should be able to kill it's citizens for raping and murdering one another. You've expressed a desire that Police Officers should have powers of summary execution.
The state should be able to torture citizens of other countries, and subject them to indefinite internment without trial arbitrarily. All human rights are to be denied to enemies of the state. And burglars. And possibly snowball-fighters .
You also believe in more democracy. Or less.
Poor people should recieve no assistance from the state.
You believe in an Ultra-Nationalist foreign policy which agressively pursues american interests overseas. And Isolationism.
Feel free to correct any inaccuracies.
Forgot to add less gun control and reinforcing the laws already in place.
halonachos wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson Devil wrote:
halonachos wrote:
Crimson Devil wrote:You want revenge, not justice. And what would you do in the case of an innocent person wrongly convicted or shot in your world?
More revenge?
Can we put down a divider here? What if we have all issues pertaining to those captured in combat on one side and those that get the door of their house kicked in and have weapons in their house on the other side, and the guys who have their doors kicked in but have no evidence of crime in the house on another.
In which case the answer to all three would be(in respect of order), death, death, and trial.
And who exactly would you trust with this ability? All of the organizations capable of this are susceptible to corruption. What is to keep them from kicking down your door? And how will you defend yourself when the Cops or Army say you are a Terrorist? On the brightside, your "kill'em" solution won't trouble you long.
Easy, I've never said anything anti-american, just look at other posts. I don't have any explosives in my house and my weapons are safely stored with the bolts removed, I pay my taxes and want to join the air force. I think that I'm in the clear when it comes to being convicted of terrorism.
Oh really? Anti-American depends on who you talk too. There are any number of people in your life willing to set you up to save themselves. HUAC ruined a lot of innocent lives for the political gain of a few politicians.
Any number of house hold chemicals can qualify as explosives. You'll find out which ones when they start packing on the federal charges. And make sure you don't have a single bullet over the limit set by the Patriot Act.
Major Nidal Malik Hasan belonged to the Army. Military service is not a protection from suspicion.
One Bad/Lazy Cop/Fed or Politician can ruin your life or end it. Our legal system is built to protect us from the abuses of Government. I oppose Military Tribunals or any other alternate form of revenge because I believe they will lead to tyranny. Our American principles are too sacred to piss away because we fear terrorists.
But what do I know, I'm an Artist. I'll get put against the wall early on, just hope they stop before they get to you.
halonachos wrote:
Our soldiers aren't criminals in most cases. If our men were strapping bombs to themselves and killing civilians then yes I would allow it,
however, we try to punish those who murder any civvies in our army.
Most insurgents aren't suicide bombers, nor do most kill civilians. You seem to have fallen victim to the generic broad stroke that besets most Americans who have not spent time studying Middle Eastern conflict.
halonachos wrote:
The men we are fighting aren't soldiers, they're criminals. Imagine the US forces as SWAT and the terrorists as violent offenders.
Many of the men we're fighting aren't really criminals, except in the sense that anyone who opposes the monopoly on legitimate violence is a criminal.
So you think that SWAT kills the people that it captures? I mean, the only problem I have with sentencing terrorists to death is that it isn't very effective, as proven by numerous test cases; especially Ireland. It didn't seem like you wanted to process terrorists as criminals, under criminal law, but if that's the case then your stance makes sense. Though I don't strictly agree with it.
Now, if you're talking about summary execution, then your analogy is way off base.
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
Members of the armed forces of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belong to a Party to the conflict and operation in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movement fulfill the following conditions:
1)that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
That the terrorists do have.
We also have this.
2)that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
Uh oh, they do not have that. They mostly dress like civilians.
We do have this however.
3)that of carrying arms openly;
Unless they're shooting it, its usually hidden.
Our military members always display weapons if they have them.
As do the militia men we support.
4)that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
They beheaded civilians and some POWs.
This goes without saying for uniformed coalition troops.
Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the detaining power.
Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents , supply contractors... provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model."
So, in most cases these guys don't fit Geneva Convention definition of a POW.
Albatross wrote:Fateweaver, the following is not in any way intended as a personal attack, but I'm a little confused about your personal/politcal views - in fact, I think a few people are and this leading to some misunderstandings and bad feeling in both this, and other threads. Here's how I see it, from what I've gleaned in my short time on Dakka:
You believe in de-centralised, 'smaller' government that has less power over it's citizens lives.
This government which excercises less power over citizens lives, should be able to kill it's citizens for raping and murdering one another. You've expressed a desire that Police Officers should have powers of summary execution.
The state should be able to torture citizens of other countries, and subject them to indefinite internment without trial arbitrarily. All human rights are to be denied to enemies of the state. And burglars. And possibly snowball-fighters .
You also believe in more democracy. Or less.
Poor people should recieve no assistance from the state.
You believe in an Ultra-Nationalist foreign policy which agressively pursues american interests overseas. And Isolationism.
Feel free to correct any inaccuracies.
that does sound like fateweaver.
Well Fateweaver this is it:
You, i think, forgot something. The UN created a a document called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, citing that all men and women are equal, all men and women are equal, deserve the same rights, and desrve the same justice.
First fifteen articles:
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11
1.Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2.No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13
1.Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2.Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.
Article 14
1.Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2.This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15
1.Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2.No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
As you can see, these articles, if i am right, subject all people convicted of any crime is innocent before proven guilty, and deserves the same rights as all peoples.
You're not patriot. You're not even amercian. You're totaltarianist person, no better than Mussolini, or hitler, or any totaltarianist, Statist leader.
The problem with trying terrorists in civilian courts is twofold and either result makes a mockery of the American Legal System.
1st part) The president and other high ranking officials have been saying for months now, "even though they are getting tried in a civilian court they will still spend the rest of their lives in prison". The problem with that declaration is that it basically says to the world "look, it doesn't matter if we try someone as a civilian or a military combatant, the outcome will be the same regardless". The result CANNOT be a fair trial because finding 12 jurors who don't feel bias toward KSM and the other 4 terrorists that are going to be tried in a civilian court is nigh on impossible. By virtue of the laws of the land itself if a fair trial cannot be ensured thus it would be unConstitutional to NOT declare a mistrial.
2) Let's assume we find 12 jurors who aren't biased toward KSM and the other 4 (lets pretend they are all ACLU wackjobs and humanitarians). These guys go through our court system and get tried and are found guilty. This only goes to show the rest of the world "guilty until proven guilty". People around the world will know that they never got a fair trial because it was decided from the start that they were guilty and were going to be found guilty. That slaps the legal system in the face.
I've gotten told by Dogma and Shuma and others that "we know they are guilty but it's our duty to prosecute them according to the law of the land". Ironic because finding 12 unbiased jurors will be nigh on impossible and even finding those 12 would result in a slap in the face to our legal system because finding them guilty speaks enormously of "unfairness" and "injustice". Either result will lead to them getting released on technicalities. A fair trial cannot happen in either case and to hold them in prison anyway (ie not guilty but we are going to detain you anyway) would make most Americans (and foreigners) lose ALL faith in what is considered a shaky platform of our Country to begin with.
So I'll say it again. KSM and the other 4 SHOULD NOT be tried in a civilian court because in order for the US justice system to work as it is supposed to the court of NY will have no choice BUT to let these men go.
So for those defending these people as being tried in civilian court you do realize that all you are doing is helping these men, these TERRORISTS, to go free to do it again down the road?
Why would Fateweaver care about what the UN says? I don't even care about their declaration of rights, and I'm pretty sympathetic to the general concept.
Albatross wrote:Fateweaver, the following is not in any way intended as a personal attack, but I'm a little confused about your personal/politcal views - in fact, I think a few people are and this leading to some misunderstandings and bad feeling in both this, and other threads. Here's how I see it, from what I've gleaned in my short time on Dakka:
You believe in de-centralised, 'smaller' government that has less power over it's citizens lives.
This government which excercises less power over citizens lives, should be able to kill it's citizens for raping and murdering one another. You've expressed a desire that Police Officers should have powers of summary execution.
The state should be able to torture citizens of other countries, and subject them to indefinite internment without trial arbitrarily. All human rights are to be denied to enemies of the state. And burglars. And possibly snowball-fighters .
You also believe in more democracy. Or less.
Poor people should recieve no assistance from the state.
You believe in an Ultra-Nationalist foreign policy which agressively pursues american interests overseas. And Isolationism.
Feel free to correct any inaccuracies.
that does sound like fateweaver.
Well Fateweaver this is it:
You, i think, forgot something. The UN created a a document called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, citing that all men and women are equal, all men and women are equal, deserve the same rights, and desrve the same justice.
First fifteen articles:
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11
1.Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2.No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13
1.Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2.Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.
Article 14
1.Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2.This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15
1.Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2.No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
As you can see, these articles, if i am right, subject all people convicted of any crime is innocent before proven guilty, and deserves the same rights as all peoples.
You're not patriot. You're not even amercian. You're totaltarianist person, no better than Mussolini, or hitler, or any totaltarianist, Statist leader.
I'm more American than you will ever think of being. I am a realist and don't see the world through rose colored glasses.
Akmed holding up a liquor store I have no problem with going through the court system because it is possible to find 12 unbiased jurors who may or may not find him guilty. With high profile criminals like KSM and the other 4 going to trial in civilian court and our own overlord and others declaring that they will remain locked up forever, also not taking into consideration that as far as 90% of the US is concerned these men are guilty it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a fair and unbiased trial for these 5 men. Everyone defending the legal system in that manner is at the same time taking a gak on it because any lawyer or judge will tell you that if an impartial jury cannot be found then their cannot be a trial and I'm willing to bet no matter where the trial is located at ON U.S soil you will not find 12 impartial jury members. Someone would have to have been living under a rock for the past 8 years and 6 months to not know about Sept. 11th.
So wait... you worry that they will be treated unfairly by the civilian court system? Or just that the inability of civilian courts to treat them fairly will lead to their release?
Even if the outcome seems obvious, you still go through due process.
Even the worst child molesters, serial killers and rapists get their day in court.
Terrorists are just the same. More murderous thugs, to be dealt with by the Rule of Law, demonstrating that civilization is better than their barbarity, and that we are too strong and our principles too important for us to lessen ourselves out of fear.
I'm defending my position of not letting them be tried in civilian court. Some would say a military tribunal won't be fair but it will be as fair as a civilian court which in this case won't be fair at all.
You are right though. Why the hell would I give a rats behind about a UN Constitution. Our own says right to a fair trial. They won't get that in this country so why should we go through the trouble and the motions? Let the military handle it. Obama doesn't realize he just basically signed their release back into the world by declaring they are to be tried in a NY civil court.
Fateweaver wrote:
2) Let's assume we find 12 jurors who aren't biased toward KSM and the other 4 (lets pretend they are all ACLU wackjobs and humanitarians). These guys go through our court system and get tried and are found guilty. This only goes to show the rest of the world "guilty until proven guilty". People around the world will know that they never got a fair trial because it was decided from the start that they were guilty and were going to be found guilty. That slaps the legal system in the face.
No it doesn't. If they were found guilty due the presentation of sound evidence, then it is not 'guilty until proven guilty'.
Fateweaver wrote:
I've gotten told by Dogma and Shuma and others that "we know they are guilty but it's our duty to prosecute them according to the law of the land".
I can't speak for Shuma, but I've not said anything of that nature.
Fateweaver wrote:
Ironic because finding 12 unbiased jurors will be nigh on impossible and even finding those 12 would result in a slap in the face to our legal system because finding them guilty speaks enormously of "unfairness" and "injustice".
If the decision is correct, and the result of impartial reasoning, then it is not a 'slap in the face of the legal system'. You're effectively claiming that any possible determination of guilt is an implicit mockery of justice, which is ridiculous.
Fateweaver wrote:
Either result will lead to them getting released on technicalities.
Neither case would necessarily force the release of the suspect. That's not how mistrials work.
In order double jeopardy to apply the declaration of mistrial must be erroneous, or the result of deliberate action the part of the prosecution.
Fateweaver wrote:
So for those defending these people as being tried in civilian court you do realize that all you are doing is helping these men, these TERRORISTS, to go free to do it again down the road?
So you are concerned about the fairness of the trial in question, but are willing to declare with certainty that the suspects are terrorists? That's preposterous even by your standards.
I'm sure KSM didn't lie about masterminding the 9/11 attacks.
I'm sure the Detroit underwear bomber was the actual guy who tried to blow that plane up. Pretty sure it's hard to mistake the guy you tackled to the floor as someone else seconds after his pants lit on fire when a bomb failed to detonate.
So for those 2 there is enough evidence they are guilty. How can they be declared innocent?
Actually the President, Vice President et al stating that there's no way they are going free, is an excellent method for appeal when convicted, but everyone please continue their discussion.
Fateweaver, you might mind the IGNORE function. It really does wonders.
Oh I know "ignore", I've used it a few times. If it gets too heated I'll use it as I don't really want a 10 day vacation from here (how will I ever keep up on P&M threads and N&R).
It's funny that PresO declares they will in no way go free and THEN declares they are to be tried in a civilian court. Almost as if he wants them to go free. Ah well, Muslim helping Muslim.
Fateweaver wrote:I'm sure KSM didn't lie about masterminding the 9/11 attacks.
I'm sure the Detroit underwear bomber was the actual guy who tried to blow that plane up. Pretty sure it's hard to mistake the guy you tackled to the floor as someone else seconds after his pants lit on fire when a bomb failed to detonate.
So for those 2 there is enough evidence they are guilty. How can they be declared innocent?
They can't be declared innocent, as no such declaration exists. Innocent is not the same as not guilty.
However, you're missing the point. A guilty man is determined to be guilty in the course of a trial. The law views them to be not guilty, until proven otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Actually the President, Vice President et al stating that there's no way they are going free, is an excellent method for appeal when convicted, but everyone please continue their discussion.
Of course, being granted an appeal is not tacit to having a conviction overturned.
Frazzled wrote:
Fateweaver, you might mind the IGNORE function. It really does wonders.
You tend to ignore what's written even when not making use of that function.
ONLY if there wasn't bias first. 12 people going into the courtroom with their minds made up someone is guilty are most likely not going to be convinced otherwise. If all 12 remain biased and find him guilty the courts failed as it was a lose/lose to begin with. If 10 or 11 or 6 change their minds and end up that after several "deliberations" cannot all go one way or the other the verdict is deadlocked, IE mistrial meaning that the court system would have to find OTHER things to try him for if they want him behind bars.
Not guilty of murder means innocent of committing said murder. Not guilty of murder of course doesn't mean innocent in committing manslaughter or assault or anything related but not directly charged in relation with.
Fateweaver wrote:Oh I know "ignore", I've used it a few times. If it gets too heated I'll use it as I don't really want a 10 day vacation from here (how will I ever keep up on P&M threads and N&R).
It's funny that PresO declares they will in no way go free and THEN declares they are to be tried in a civilian court. Almost as if he wants them to go free. Ah well, Muslim helping Muslim.
How would you sell "We need to live up to our principles" when so many Americans seem to lack the guts to be the "Home of the Brave"?
Fateweaver wrote:ONLY if there wasn't bias first. 12 people going into the courtroom with their minds made up someone is guilty are most likely not going to be convinced otherwise. If all 12 remain biased and find him guilty the courts failed as it was a lose/lose to begin with.
That bias has to demonstrated by the jurors in question, otherwise we have no way of knowing if they actually are biased to an extent which can cause a mistrial. We can assume they are, but assumption is not knowledge. That's why we have jury selection.
Fateweaver wrote:
If 10 or 11 or 6 change their minds and end up that after several "deliberations" cannot all go one way or the other the verdict is deadlocked, IE mistrial meaning that the court system would have to find OTHER things to try him for if they want him behind bars.
Mistrial most often leads to a retrial, not the cessation of prosecution. Mistrial terminates prosecution when it is caused by anything other than "manifest necessity".
Fateweaver wrote:
Not guilty of murder means innocent of committing said murder. Not guilty of murder of course doesn't mean innocent in committing manslaughter or assault or anything related but not directly charged in relation with.
Not guilty of murder means not guilty of murder. Being innocent is a positive statement, which implies that the accused could not have committed the murder. Not guilty is a negative statement which implies only that the court could not prove that the accused committed the murder.
'm more American than you will ever think of being. I am a realist and don't see the world through rose colored glasses.
This statement beyond most others would likely push me to physical violence were we to ever be near one another.
Akmed holding up a liquor store I have no problem with going through the court system because it is possible to find 12 unbiased jurors who may or may not find him guilty. With high profile criminals like KSM and the other 4 going to trial in civilian court and our own overlord and others declaring that they will remain locked up forever, also not taking into consideration that as far as 90% of the US is concerned these men are guilty it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a fair and unbiased trial for these 5 men. Everyone defending the legal system in that manner is at the same time taking a gak on it because any lawyer or judge will tell you that if an impartial jury cannot be found then their cannot be a trial and I'm willing to bet no matter where the trial is located at ON U.S soil you will not find 12 impartial jury members. Someone would have to have been living under a rock for the past 8 years and 6 months to not know about Sept. 11th.
Then it would certainly be a quick trial wouldn't it? They hold trials for people who have confessed as well, and those that plead guilty still do so in a court. You're resistance here is based entirely on the fact that you base all of your views on what someone tells you to believe, probably your local conservative talk mouthpiece, though it could well be fraz also. None of it makes any fething sense and largely speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of a court, which is to both determine guilt AND DETERMINE PUNISHMENT. A man caught on 15 cameras, with 200 eye witnesses, who confessed, who has DNA linking him to the crime, and who bit the bailif still spends his time in court because thats where you send people so a judge can determine what to do with them.
I'm sure KSM didn't lie about masterminding the 9/11 attacks.
I'm sure the Detroit underwear bomber was the actual guy who tried to blow that plane up. Pretty sure it's hard to mistake the guy you tackled to the floor as someone else seconds after his pants lit on fire when a bomb failed to detonate.
So for those 2 there is enough evidence they are guilty. How can they be declared innocent?
Planewide conspiracy? Masterful bait and switch? Clones? How is that relevant in the slightest?
Actually the President, Vice President et al stating that there's no way they are going free, is an excellent method for appeal when convicted, but everyone please continue their discussion.
Torture also renders quite a bit of evidence as invalid.
It's funny that PresO declares they will in no way go free and THEN declares they are to be tried in a civilian court. Almost as if he wants them to go free. Ah well, Muslim helping Muslim.
Scratch that, that would be the thing to get me to hit you with a pool cue. Were this in a bar of course. Is it against forum rules to state that someone is being insulting to the point that it would insight anger and possible repercussions in person? I can delete this part, its one of those gray areas that I'm not sure about.
Shuma wrote:This statement beyond most others would likely push me to physical violence were we to ever be near one another.
Dude, accusing people of wearing rose colored glasses, is basically Fate's catch phrase. I can't imagine why you would be so infuriated by such a standard comment from him.
Note:
Apparently you need to be wearing blinders to be a Real 'Mericun.
Shuma wrote:This statement beyond most others would likely push me to physical violence were we to ever be near one another.
Dude, accusing people of wearing rose colored glasses, is basically Fate's catch phrase. I can't imagine why you would be so infuriated by such a standard comment from him.
In person I greatly dislike comments that state a form of inherent superiority, especially nationalistic, and especially over another citizen. It's really compounded quite a bit by the mind boggling ignorance that goes hand in hand with the comment though. As I said, thats an in-person thing. I can handle it no problem on a forum.
Fateweaver wrote:It's Shuma. I think his own existence infuriates him. Even Dakka's biggest cynic, HBMC, can laugh things off on occasion.
He told me I made this forum unfun for him and that he wished I would just leave at one point. All I did was argue with him whenever he talked about how GW overpowers new models to sell more of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:Shuma, you're so funny. You can't hit Fateweaver with a pool cue, you don't even arms, and if you tried to bite him he'd probably just pass his invul.
Clearly you haven't seen how kirby deals with problems.
I think he means Kier Kirby, the singer from Deee-Lite.
Meanwhile, this thread is ridiculous. I asked Fateweaver what rights he thinks a US citizen is entitled to if arrested overseas, and he responded with some gibberish about being held to the law of the land - and didn't even address the idea of a fair trial being part of that law. It's pretty obvious he's not trying to debate this honestly. His argument now consists of claiming that taking someone to civilian court when their guilt is clear must be unjust because you're going to find them guilty. His alternative hasn't really been explained all that well, but appears to be some combination of military courts (where the overwhelming weight of evidence somehow isn't a problem) and summary execution.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.
Recently, many talking heads have been speculating on the future of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the so-called mastermind of the 9/11 attacks). Those on the left are fond of arguing that a trial of Mohammed in America’s federal court system will prove to the rest of the world that our system of “justice” is the best in the world and that it works. Those on the right complain that trying Mohammed and others like him in the court system deprives us of valuable information that might otherwise be obtained and that trying Mohammed in America puts our safety at risk. But the argument from the right that interests me the most is the notion that the trial is not fair because President Obama, Attorney General Holder and the rest of the administration have already determined and proclaimed Mohammed’s guilt. To be sure those in the administration believe a guilty verdict or plea is extremely likely or they never would have considered trying Mohammed in the courts of America.
Given that the president is the de facto chief prosecutor and that Attorney General Holder runs the Justice Department is it really surprising that they are confident in their case? If they were bringing cases against high-profile defendants that they were not willing to stand behind in front of the cameras that would be a more serious problem than their apparent confidence in their ability to get a jury to find Mohammed guilty.
Whenever those on the right develop a new set of talking points it is instructive to examine them for credibility. In this case, there is no way Mohammed would ever be found not guilty by an American jury. The only way a defendant can be exonerated is by a unanimous vote. Does anyone really believe that’s possible given the mountain of evidence that exists—including his own statements—against Mohammed? If by some miracle Mohammed’s lawyers were able to convince one or more jurors to ignore their clients own statements and find him not guilty the trial would result in a hung jury. In that case, the administration would be free to try Mohammed again and to detain him until the completion of the next trial. The only way the prospect of Mohammed winning his freedom could even approach the discussion stage would be if 12 Americans all voted to find him not guilty. And, of course, the possibility exists that a military tribunal could render a not guilty verdict as well. So, unless you actually believe that a panel of 12 Americans would find a man who has repeatedly confessed to developing the 9/11 plot in several interviews a plausible outcome then you are free to go right on ahead continuing to buy into Republican scare tactics.
To those who believe a trial whose outcome has already been largely determined in the court of public opinion is a sham I have two things to say. First, some people really are overwhelmingly guilty. Some people really do commit crimes. The beauty of our system is that we, at least, offer them the opportunity to demonstrate that the evidence against them is not what it appears to be. If you oppose a continuation of that system you oppose the foundation of the legal system that has helped keep us from becoming a dictatorship. Second, a guilty verdict may be more likely in a military tribunal—where standards of evidence are different. So, what is the difference between holding a public trial where the outcome has been largely predetermined when compared to a military trial that has also been largely predetermined?
A little consistency from those on the right would be nice—especially when we are discussing issues as important as national security and the safety of America.
OK I think this thread has run its course now that we're threatening internet bar fights. bar fights are for wussies. internet MAC-10 Drive Bys, thats the new black.
I actually like that this administration is seemingly more open to the public than Clinton's and Bush's.
in the above.
