Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Fateweaver wrote:Wha?

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?

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.

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.

You want revenge, not justice. And what would you do in the case of an innocent person wrongly convicted or shot in your world?

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.

So it's okay for Iraqis terrorists to be killed without trial if they are caught in combat.

Is it okay for US servicemen to be killed without trial by Iraqi terrorists after caught in combat?

Most of them are used for propaganda and then killed to begin with.

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.

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.

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?

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.


Feel free to correct any inaccuracies.

dogma wrote:

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.

But you more or less hit it right on.

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.

isthatmycow wrote:

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.

Both.

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.