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

kdsub -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 2:50:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 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. The martyrs are the 3,000 they killed Butch

philosophy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 3:46:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy 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. .....so if i visit New York and by some misfortune end up in a car accident the law that covers US citizens does not apply to me? You do get why Lady Justice wears a blindfold don't you?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 4:02:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub 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 No, I doubt that I could. 215 of my colleagues died that day, including a woman I was scheduled to meet with the next day.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 4:09:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales 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. conservatives are not monolithicBut 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? no, but it was an act of terrorism. If he was sponsored by a foreign entity than it would be an act of warIn 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. The problem with your logic is that those tactics of terrorism were sponsored and taught by people. They are soldiers representing an ideology, and you can declare war on the ideology and those who sponsor it. The claim that you cant declare war on terrorism is a distraction used to deflect focus from the perpetrators. 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. I didnt create it, it is a category recognized under international law.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 4:28:30 PM)
Don’t worry all. This’ll be one of those show trials (you know like the Saddam Hussein one), how can a jury be found that’ll find them anything other than guilty? Where do you get these people that’ll know nothing of 911 and only focus on the evidence? Even if 90% of the evidence pointed to innocence just imagine the pressure the jury would be under to convict. Then if they find them not guilty who’d want to be one of those jurors. Even the state is talking about securing a conviction so what kind of justice system is that? One where the verdict is known before the trial (the state has pre-empted the outcome). It’s a pointless exercise conducted to show the west has a due process. Tough situation but we all know what the verdict will be, in truth they can't receive a fair trial not on this earth. You’d have to get a bunch of aliens to sit on the jury that have just arrived from the universe next door. This reminds me of going through the motions i.e. the grass doesn't need cutting but we better go over it with a lawnmower to make sure we don't forget how grass needs to be cut. No honest intent in any of this for true justice i.e. where you have no idea what the outcome will be and the chances of predicting the outcome are 50/50 to the uninitiated.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 4:47:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead 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? The world evolves. Traditional definitions have to evolve with them. Terrorists that attack foreign nations, especially those sponsored by other nations, are committing acts of war. Terrorists already tried under military law? Who cares? Again, things need to evolve with the nature of the threat. The farce of the first WTC trial proved the folloy of trying terrorists in civilian court. It is not, however, unprecedented. David Hicks, Salim Hamdan were convicted of terrorism in US military tribunals Riyad Arafat, a Palestinian terrorist, was tried and convicted by a military court.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 5:32:54 PM)
quote: The problem with your logic is that those tactics of terrorism were sponsored and taught by people. They are soldiers representing an ideology, and you can declare war on the ideology and those who sponsor it. The claim that you cant declare war on terrorism is a distraction used to deflect focus from the perpetrators. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy In this case, the teachers of the man behind the attack, Bin Laden, was the CIA. Let's not quite forget that in our "foreign bad guy" paranoia. What is profoundly disturbing about your view is it puts us in a state of war without winable objectives and without any chance that it will ever end. A perpetual state of war is not acceptable, especially when we have non military means of dealing with it. So far, our police departments and fbi have done far more to thwart terrorist plans on US soil than the troops we've deployed or the results of our tossing out our national principles.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 9:14:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: The problem with your logic is that those tactics of terrorism were sponsored and taught by people. They are soldiers representing an ideology, and you can declare war on the ideology and those who sponsor it. The claim that you cant declare war on terrorism is a distraction used to deflect focus from the perpetrators. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy In this case, the teachers of the man behind the attack, Bin Laden, was the CIA. Let's not quite forget that in our "foreign bad guy" paranoia.irrelevant What is profoundly disturbing about your view is it puts us in a state of war without winable objectives and without any chance that it will ever end. A perpetual state of war is not acceptable, especially when we have non military means of dealing with it. So far, our police departments and fbi have done far more to thwart terrorist plans on US soil than the troops we've deployed or the results of our tossing out our national principles. Of course there are winnable objectives and of course it will end. Not in our lifetimes, but it will most assuredly end. And the successes of the FBI and CIA were not possible under Janet Reno, it took the Bush administration to correct that. It also took wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to keep the terrorist networks in disarray and too occupied with survival to succeed on any large scale. Treating terrorism as a criminal problem, avoiding even calling it terrorism, disguises its true nature and leads to the same complacency that led to 9/11. We are less safe now than we were a year ago, and we will be even less safe after civilian trials for war crimes.

Rhodes85 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 9:36:44 PM)
'And the successes of the FBI and CIA were not possible under Janet Reno, it took the Bush administration to correct that. It also took wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to keep the terrorist networks in disarray and too occupied with survival to succeed on any large scale. ' Terrorism, as carried out by the current style of Islamic extremests was never successful on any large scale to begin with prior to such wars. A small group executed an attack on the US (9/11) the US responds by setting in motion the events that led to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. That causes the various killing and oppression of the Afghan and Iraqi people, which makes them even more angry at the US and drives more and more people (who, had such occupations not occured, would have gone about their normal lives and never got involved in such things) into the arms of extremists and terrorists. Do you really think this isn't what they wanted to begin with? Terrorists aren't stupid. Oppression breeds sympathy and cooperation with such groups by its very existance. History is proof of that. All the US has done by starting a 'war on terror' is to create support for those terrorists and swell their numbers. Ever heard the saying 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend?' Even opposing religious groups in Iraq are cooperating to fight the American forces now. 'Kd, the problem with that is that 9/11 was an act of war, not simply "a crime." ' Well, no, technically it wasn't an act of war. Only a nation or a legitimately recognized body/group/organization/etc.. that represents a nation can commit an act of war against another nation. Using your logic the US should have attacked Saudi Arabia, given that most of the people involved in the hijackings were Saudis. The terrorists were a non-government sanctioned group that committed an act of terrorism that was offically sanctioned by no government. '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. ' Indeed. But that is not even remotely legal or constitutional.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 9:51:42 PM)
quote: Treating terrorism as a criminal problem, avoiding even calling it terrorism, disguises its true nature and leads to the same complacency that led to 9/11. We are less safe now than we were a year ago, and we will be even less safe after civilian trials for war crimes. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy And we might be "safer" if we declared marshal law and continued it towards some time, not in our lifetimes, when there is no madman who thinks that strapping a bomb to his chest is a good idea. I personally am not willing to give up that amount of what being an American means for the amount of "safety" it would provide. I suppose it is a matter of priorities. They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 10:22:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: Treating terrorism as a criminal problem, avoiding even calling it terrorism, disguises its true nature and leads to the same complacency that led to 9/11. We are less safe now than we were a year ago, and we will be even less safe after civilian trials for war crimes. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy And we might be "safer" if we declared marshal law and continued it towards some time, not in our lifetimes, when there is no madman who thinks that strapping a bomb to his chest is a good idea. I personally am not willing to give up that amount of what being an American means for the amount of "safety" it would provide. I suppose it is a matter of priorities. They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin Ben Franklin wouldnt say that if he were alive today.

TheHeretic -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/14/2009 10:53:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Ben Franklin wouldnt say that if he were alive today. I think he would, Wilbur. I also think he'd be pissed as all hell about substituting politcal correctness for common sense.

Marc2b -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 5:30:05 AM)
quote: Ben Franklin wouldnt say that if he were alive today. Well, I've never met the man personally but from what I've learned about him I think that not only would he say it - he'd shout it from the rooftops. Figuratively speaking, he'd probably make the rounds on all the talking heads shows.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 5:49:33 AM)
quote: Ben Franklin wouldnt say that if he were alive today. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I disagree. I see no reason why being alive today as opposed to in the late 1700's would have turned the man into a coward.

DarkSteven -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 6:23:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Of course there are winnable objectives and of course it will end. Not in our lifetimes, but it will most assuredly end. I see your assurance that it is so, but I have yet to see any coherent endpoint from either the Bush or Obama administrations. Obviously, there is no feasible way of attaining those objectives if we don't have them. The fact that you state that an end will not occur in our lifetimes says that this will go on 50 years or more since there are some youngish posters here... quote: And the successes of the FBI and CIA were not possible under Janet Reno, it took the Bush administration to correct that. I'm confused by this. The worst attack on US soil in history took place under the Bush administration. Meanwhile, the Reno bunch was able to stop another terrorist plot against the WTC. While Reno screwed up - Waco is a shining example - claiming that the Bush administration was successful with intelligence is impossible. The best argument that I've ever heard for that is that we never had another terrorist attack after the worst one ever on US soil. And that's not even exactly true, because Richard Reid made it past all federal security measures and didn't down a plane only due to the passengers and crew. quote: It also took wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to keep the terrorist networks in disarray and too occupied with survival to succeed on any large scale. Um, no. Worldwide, terrorism has mushroomed since we invaded. And you DO realize that a murderer just killed a dozen in Fort Hood in a terrorist attack as a direct response to those wars, right? quote: Treating terrorism as a criminal problem, avoiding even calling it terrorism, disguises its true nature and leads to the same complacency that led to 9/11. We are less safe now than we were a year ago, and we will be even less safe after civilian trials for war crimes. At this point, your thinking seems along the lines of the Bush administration, which decided that existing law was inadequate to deal with terrorists, and decided to create a new branch of law around the concept of "enemy combatants" that was not addressed by civilian or existing military laws. I'm not so sure. Terrorism within the US can be dealt with under civilian law. If an American is attacked overseas, then currently we have to accept the justice system of the host country. I honestly don't see what the new system gives except for the possibility of torturing those held and denying them legal rights or representation. And that truly scares me, not least of which how we grabbed innocent citizens when it was assumed that they would have no means to defend themselves.

luckydawg -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 7:53:28 AM)
Fast reply...At least Obama is only going throught the motions and pretending that he is dealing with Terrorism as a Criminal matter. No one was willing to discuss it when I brought it up before, but in no way is killing suspects (along with thier famillies) with predator drones in nations we are not at war with..Law enforcement. It is a millitary operation, not law enforcement. Obama gets this. He has people killed with no trials. His supporters are still parroting thier discredited election slogans, but the elected President disagrees. And has those working to destroy our nation killed WITH NO TRIALS!!! I would also like to point out that franklin qualified his comments "essential liberty". What essential liberties have been lost?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 9:30:58 AM)
quote: I would also like to point out that franklin qualified his comments "essential liberty". What essential liberties have been lost? ORIGINAL: luckydawg I view the right to a fair and public trial as an essential liberty. When the government is given the ability to decide who gets such a fair and public trial, an essential liberty is lost.

philosophy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 11:01:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Of course there are winnable objectives .....fancy specifying what they are?

popeye1250 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 1:06:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead 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? Well gee, right off the top of my head how about the Nuremburg Trials? Now the Nazis wearn't terrorists? I wasn't aware that one had to be carrying a certain type of I.D. card on them to perpetrate an act of war. As for the I.R.A. the things they did were certainly acts of war! Ambushing uniformed soldiers, planting bombs in London killing innocent civilians, smuggling weapons to and from foreign countries, things like that have to be "sanctioned" by foreign countries to be considered "acts of war?" What do they do take a "vote" on it or something like that?

Moonhead -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/15/2009 1:12:56 PM)
No. The Nazis were running Germany in a deeply offensive way, but they were still the ruling party of a country, and the Nuremberg trials were staged on that basis. Wars are carried out between countries. Neither the IRA or Al Queda are nations, or wear uniforms. This is why they're terrorists rather than militias in the first place.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125