RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five!

RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 9:20:06 AM)
~FR~ If we can call something "a war on terrorism" and so suspend the criminal procedures and protections of our system of justice for terrorists, can we then, in the name of "the war on drugs" do the same for drug dealers and users? For that matter, can we use the term "war on poverty" to suspend those procedures and protections for the poor? Let's carry it out to it's logical conclusion.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 9:22:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales ~FR~ If we can call something "a war on terrorism" and so suspend the criminal procedures and protections of our system of justice for terrorists, can we then, in the name of "the war on drugs" do the same for drug dealers and users? For that matter, can we use the term "war on poverty" to suspend those procedures and protections for the poor? Let's carry it out to it's logical conclusion. Hmmmmm. If thats your idea of logic perhaps you need to brush up on the rules of logic. Conclusions have to be drawn on the basis of consistent facts. War on terrorism.....non-citizens Drug dealers and users....citizens War on poverty...citizens FAIL.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 9:35:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy ~FR~ If we can call something "a war on terrorism" and so suspend the criminal procedures and protections of our system of justice for terrorists, can we then, in the name of "the war on drugs" do the same for drug dealers and users? For that matter, can we use the term "war on poverty" to suspend those procedures and protections for the poor? Let's carry it out to it's logical conclusion. Let's use your logic. If our system of law and justice only applies to citizens, then any non-citizen who commits a crime should not be brought through our justice system but rather be either judged by a military tribunal or summarily detained and or executed without any legal recourse. Before you can convince to to even consider tossing out legal system into the toilet, you'll have to explain how these terrorists are any different in a legal sense than an illegal alien who shoots a clerk in the head in a holdup. Another point of logic: If these people are combatants they are under the jurisdiction of the Geneva convention. If they are not combatants but criminals, they are under the jurisdiction of the American justice system. They must be one or the other.

AnimusRex -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 9:49:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy War on terrorism.....non-citizens Drug dealers and users....citizens War on poverty...citizens Consider the case of Jose Padilla. He is an American citizen, and was arrested in Chicago. He was held without charges, without a trial or any sort of court hearing, based on evidence that no one was allowed to see or cross examine. For 6 years. By the way, did I point out he is an American citizen, like you or I? And that this case has never been struck down or reviewed. Which means that Obama could simply point to you or me or any person, and order that you be locked up without a trial or charges, forever. For any reason whatsoever.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 10:02:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy ~FR~ If we can call something "a war on terrorism" and so suspend the criminal procedures and protections of our system of justice for terrorists, can we then, in the name of "the war on drugs" do the same for drug dealers and users? For that matter, can we use the term "war on poverty" to suspend those procedures and protections for the poor? Let's carry it out to it's logical conclusion. Let's use your logic. If our system of law and justice only applies to citizens, then any non-citizen who commits a crime should not be brought through our justice system but rather be either judged by a military tribunal or summarily detained and or executed without any legal recourse. not only isnt that "my logic" but again it isnt logic at all. First, we were discussing the war on terrorism. Terrorism by non-citizens is not a crime, its an act of war. Second, we were talking about rights under the Constitution. Non-citizen criminals can still be prosecuted in our justice system without extending all of the rights and privileges of a citizen. Before you can convince to to even consider tossing out legal system into the toilet, you'll have to explain how these terrorists are any different in a legal sense than an illegal alien who shoots a clerk in the head in a holdup. motivation and intent, duhhh Another point of logic: If these people are combatants they are under the jurisdiction of the Geneva convention. If they are not combatants but criminals, they are under the jurisdiction of the American justice system. They must be one or the other. Correct but incomplete. Non-uniformed unlawful combatants are "under the jurisdiction" of the GC (if only by exclusion), and therefore they do not have the same rights under the GC as uniformed combatants.

kdsub -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 10:03:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I do wonder whether the fact that they're being tried in New York isn't to make sure the jury finds them guilty, yes. One of the basic tenets of our justice system is that crimes are tried in the jurisdiction they are committed…that would be New York. Don’t you think that is as it should be? I believe we can trust the honesty and integrity of the people of New York and the United States to judge fairly…If you think otherwise what are you trying to say about the people of America? Butch

Marc2b -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 10:10:17 AM)
quote: Any thoughts from the Americans on this? Is finally bringing these cunts to trial yet another PR stunt by a Marxist Steppin Fetchit impersonator who shouldn't be in the White House, or an attempt to waggle his arse at the right wing? Myself, I suspect he's painting his bum purple and donning his "Dominant Babboon" t shirt even as we speak. The whole thing is a blatant "Bush couldn't be bothered with this but I am," routine. God only knows how he's planning to square this with the fourth and fifth amendments. Presumably the trial's being undertaken on the assumption that they'll all plead guilty hoping to be martyred. (emphasis mine) Was is really necessary to use racist language to get you point across? As for the topic at hand: Personally I don't know why they just didn't blow their heads off on the battlefield when they had the chance but now that they are in custody, due process should take place.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 10:11:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I do wonder whether the fact that they're being tried in New York isn't to make sure the jury finds them guilty, yes. One of the basic tenets of our justice system is that crimes are tried in the jurisdiction they are committed…that would be New York. Don’t you think that is as it should be? I believe we can trust the honesty and integrity of the people of New York and the United States to judge fairly…If you think otherwise what are you trying to say about the people of America? Butch Another basic tenet of our justice system is that venue should be changed when the jury pool is compromised by pre-trial publicity. The enormity of the attacks is such that, if it is to be tried in a civilian court, there is NOWHERE in the country where an impartial jury could be formed. That will be one of the earliest arguments in the Holder-Obama Three Ring Circus. What does that say about the people of America? That they are justly outraged by an act of war, that should be tried as such.

kdsub -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 11:04:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I do wonder whether the fact that they're being tried in New York isn't to make sure the jury finds them guilty, yes. One of the basic tenets of our justice system is that crimes are tried in the jurisdiction they are committed…that would be New York. Don’t you think that is as it should be? I believe we can trust the honesty and integrity of the people of New York and the United States to judge fairly…If you think otherwise what are you trying to say about the people of America? Butch Another basic tenet of our justice system is that venue should be changed when the jury pool is compromised by pre-trial publicity. The enormity of the attacks is such that, if it is to be tried in a civilian court, there is NOWHERE in the country where an impartial jury could be formed. That will be one of the earliest arguments in the Holder-Obama Three Ring Circus. What does that say about the people of America? That they are justly outraged by an act of war, that should be tried as such. I don't believe that only because I know myself. I would be fair and I am just an average American. I would put my preconceived notions aside and judge the facts I was given in court. There is a vast pool of jurors to choose from and it will not be hard to get an unprejudiced jury. Now tell me could you be unprejudiced?…I think you could. Butch

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 11:04:47 AM)
quote: Another basic tenet of our justice system is that venue should be changed when the jury pool is compromised by pre-trial publicity. The enormity of the attacks is such that, if it is to be tried in a civilian court, there is NOWHERE in the country where an impartial jury could be formed. That will be one of the earliest arguments in the Holder-Obama Three Ring Circus. What does that say about the people of America? That they are justly outraged by an act of war, that should be tried as such. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy So motivation and intent should determine the treatment of the crime? Interesting considering that the conservative position on hate crimes is that the motivation and intent should be irrelevant, that only the act should be considered. But taking the logic you seem to be using, was not Timothy Mcvey's act of blowing up a building in OK an act of war? In fact an act of treason? In that case, why was he not treated as a treasonous citizen trying to overthrow the government by an act of war. The problem with your logic is the basic flaw that has existed since the beginning of this "war on terrorism" Terrorism isn't a country, it is not a government, it is not a religion. Terrorism is a tactic. You cannot declare war upon a tactic. Those who follow the tactic are not soldiers. Once again I say you cannot have it both ways. Either these people are enemy combatants in which case the Geneva convention applies or they are criminals in which case the justice system applies. You cannot conveniently create a third category that allows anything and everything to be done to these people without ethical consequences to the captors as well as the perpetrators captured.

TheHeretic -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 11:10:01 AM)
Y'know, Spinner, when you ask for information, and get it, it's just common courtesy to acknowledge. Or were you fishing for something to snark at, and came up empty?

popeye1250 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 11:37:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I do wonder whether the fact that they're being tried in New York isn't to make sure the jury finds them guilty, yes. One of the basic tenets of our justice system is that crimes are tried in the jurisdiction they are committed…that would be New York. Don’t you think that is as it should be? I believe we can trust the honesty and integrity of the people of New York and the United States to judge fairly…If you think otherwise what are you trying to say about the people of America? Butch Kd, the problem with that is that 9/11 was an act of war, not simply "a crime." In "crimes" our military doesn't go around "assisting" the police by doing bombings for them. This is a military matter and the legal system shouldn't be getting involved. Just like the military shouldn't be involved in the courts. I was watching this on t.v. last night and even the "9/11 families" don't want this. It makes about as much sense as bringing that 16 year old pirate and his parents 8,000 miles to the U.S. for "trial!" Obama is a lawyer, they think everything should be adjudicated in the courts! I thought there was supposed to be a seperation of the military and other branches of our govt. That's the problem with the judicial system, they seem to think that it's "ok" to interfere where they don't belong. And that's not a good thing! And it's really not a good thing when the ptb tell our military to "arrest" pirates! What's next, arresting U.S. Citizens in violation of Posse Committatus? The only military branch who can affect arrests is the U.S. Coast Guard, they are, "Officers of the Customs" I certainly hope that my govt isn't doing these things on my behalf. Spinner, I agree, the Geneva Accords should apply here not some "court" that's given the job "politically" and they should be shot as spies. That's what they were doing leading up to 9/11, spying and plotting. We really don't need a "show trial" that's going to bring back so many bad memories to so many people! This will only re-open wounds to the families who lost loved ones for no good reason! Obama is making a real mistake on this!

kdsub -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 12:05:12 PM)
Hi popeye I agree it is a gray area ...That is why I think it is important that through treaties and agreements between countries we try and work out a way to deal with terrorists. Not just In Afghanistan and Iraq but worldwide. We also need to deal with pirates and any captives taken from the world at large with no country of provocation or origin. Like any successful tactic it will be repeated over and over in the future unless we figure a way to counter it. If this negotiation cannot be accomplished in the UN, which I severely doubt, then it should be on an individual basis with willing countries. Butch

slvemike4u -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 12:11:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales ~FR~ If we can call something "a war on terrorism" and so suspend the criminal procedures and protections of our system of justice for terrorists, can we then, in the name of "the war on drugs" do the same for drug dealers and users? For that matter, can we use the term "war on poverty" to suspend those procedures and protections for the poor? Let's carry it out to it's logical conclusion. Hmmmmm. If thats your idea of logic perhaps you need to brush up on the rules of logic. Conclusions have to be drawn on the basis of consistent facts. War on terrorism.....non-citizens Drug dealers and users....citizens War on poverty...citizens FAIL. Willbeur you keep hanging your hat on the citizenship issue.....and posters keep pointing out to you the Constitution draws no distinction,if you are to be tried in an American court the full protections of that document are in place. Accept it or not...it is the law of the land.

slvemike4u -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 12:15:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy ~FR~ If we can call something "a war on terrorism" and so suspend the criminal procedures and protections of our system of justice for terrorists, can we then, in the name of "the war on drugs" do the same for drug dealers and users? For that matter, can we use the term "war on poverty" to suspend those procedures and protections for the poor? Let's carry it out to it's logical conclusion. Let's use your logic. If our system of law and justice only applies to citizens, then any non-citizen who commits a crime should not be brought through our justice system but rather be either judged by a military tribunal or summarily detained and or executed without any legal recourse. Before you can convince to to even consider tossing out legal system into the toilet, you'll have to explain how these terrorists are any different in a legal sense than an illegal alien who shoots a clerk in the head in a holdup. Another point of logic: If these people are combatants they are under the jurisdiction of the Geneva convention. If they are not combatants but criminals, they are under the jurisdiction of the American justice system. They must be one or the other. Unless of course you can find some lawyers who can make convoluted and dangerous leaps of logic on the matter.Thereby creating a whole new classification...one that is neither fish nor fowl. But of course that would be un-Constitutional...[8\|]

Moonhead -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 12:48:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Kd, the problem with that is that 9/11 was an act of war, not simply "a crime." No it wasn't, Popeye. The alleged mastermind of the September 2001 atrocities whose being tried and the half bearded halfwit who put him up to it are both private citizens, rather than leaders of a nation that has declared war on your country. It follows from that that the attack can't possibly have been an act of war, is it wasn't carried out by a uniformed national militia of any sort. Sorry, but during the IRA bombing campaigns during the '70s and '80s, the perpetrators were tried under civil rather military law, as doing otherwise would be to recognise them as a military force, which they weren't, whatever they called themselves. See if you can cite a terrorist who was tried under military rather than civil law?

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 1:28:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u ahhh now they are prisoners of war......then they fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention,do they not? If they were uniformed combatants, then yes they are protected by the Geneva Convention. which of course, they werent. All you guys together, this is really all cute and what have you, except if you read the actual geneva convention you will see alot of stuff which says essentially (here you can obey or not) andwhich regardless of the cute title is actually a treaty, needing ratifcation by congress ) and see our signing statements authorized by congress about 1955 for parts three and four (the ones everyone is slinging around with such aplomb) that we pretty much said, except for a few minor clauses, fuck you we do not agree with these parts, and will not uphold them, so it is probably a really moot discussion. Back to our constitution, that's what is on the cart. Ron

Politesub53 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 1:47:35 PM)
I really cant see why these trials will be held where the court cant hand out the death penalty. Any other outcome, if the defendants are found guilty will result in a public outcry in the US. On the otherhand, a trial in a court which can hand out the death penalty will make these criminals martyrs.

slvemike4u -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 2:05:23 PM)
Polite the federal court can ,after a sucessful prosecution reach a death sentence finding.....as to whether or not that is used to turn these people into martyrs.....fuck it...better they be viewed as martyers after they are tried and sentenced(presuming their guilt ) than to have them proclaimed as martyers who never had their day in court as proscribed by our laws. We will be castigated either way we go here....

SilverMark -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 2:28:59 PM)
Moon, you really used the term step n fetchit?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875