Speaking of terrorists....

joey48442 wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

ignorant wrote: We are better than them and we will treat them as such. We must set the example.

True enough! But even a military tribunal would treat the perpetrators better than they treated their victims. Interesting conundrum, is it not?

Anyone in court for a violent crime is being treated better than his or her victim. So this arguement would apply to all violent criminals. Joey

True, but the ongoing debate is whether, or not, Gitmo detainees are criminals.

If a single act of radical Islamic terrorism occus in NYC during these trials, the administration is screwed.

oldsaw wrote:

joey48442 wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

ignorant wrote: We are better than them and we will treat them as such. We must set the example.

True enough! But even a military tribunal would treat the perpetrators better than they treated their victims. Interesting conundrum, is it not?

Anyone in court for a violent crime is being treated better than his or her victim. So this arguement would apply to all violent criminals. Joey

True, but the ongoing debate is whether, or not, Gitmo detainees are criminals. If a single act of radical Islamic terrorism occus in NYC during these trials, the administration is screwed.

In my opinion, a terrorist is always a criminal, but a criminal is not always a terrorist.

Joey

poopshovel wrote: Fantastic. These dicks will be returning to the city they tried to destroy, where they'll receive the full protection of the United States Constitution, and more than likely, milk and berkeleying cookies.

And, should the wrong judge get the case, a possible aquittal.

However, should that happen, their first stop on their bus ride to the airport should be at an FDNY station!

ignorant wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

ignorant wrote: We are better than them and we will treat them as such. We must set the example.

True enough! But even a military tribunal would treat the perpetrators better than they treated their victims. Interesting conundrum, is it not?

Let's look at it tactically; We don't want to do anything that will swell the ranks of recruits for any terrorist organization. If we treat them poorly they will use it as nearly like politicians use gaffs and sound bytes....

So when they do something stupid which swells the ranks of our military is that a bad thing too?

I have a hard time with that whole treating them with kid gloves thing. By its very nature terrorism is considered outside the bounds of so called 'civilized warfare'. Terrorists strike at a civilian population with impunity and deal death and destruction to innocents. Then we catch, jail and grill them and then put them on trial, but suddenly WE are the bad guys? Hmmm. That does not compute.

The way this is being handled now, it will become a circus and the terrorist organizations will, no matter the evidence, claim their members did not get a fair trial, thus stirring up all KINDS of crap. We are creating the next wave of bold terrorists with this whole 'civilian trial' thing.

I personally would rather see some 'black ops' types track the bastards down and give them a triple tap: two in the chest, one in the head. That would save all the Gitmo and trial aggravation and if done quietly there wouldn't be much in the way of martyrdom.

Jensenman wrote: So when they do something stupid which swells the ranks of our military is that a bad thing too?

Umm Yes! Didn't 9/11 swell the ranks of our military... I'd say 9/11 was a bad thing and If it didn't happen we'd have no reason(as false as it is) for the wars today.

9/11 a false reason? 3,000 people dead in an unprovoked attack on US soil?

Jensenman wrote: 9/11 a false reason? 3,000 people dead in an unprovoked attack on US soil?

no connection to Iraq and the 9/11 attack. None.. Afghanistan, maybe.. Iraq no...

oldsaw wrote:

joey48442 wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

ignorant wrote: We are better than them and we will treat them as such. We must set the example.

True enough! But even a military tribunal would treat the perpetrators better than they treated their victims. Interesting conundrum, is it not?

Anyone in court for a violent crime is being treated better than his or her victim. So this arguement would apply to all violent criminals. Joey

True, but the ongoing debate is whether, or not, Gitmo detainees are criminals. If a single act of radical Islamic terrorism occus in NYC during these trials, the administration is screwed.

hmmm, i wonder what it costs to convert to radical islam and get a bus ticket to NYC. to screw this administration, it would be money well spent.

Jensenman wrote: 9/11 a false reason? 3,000 people dead in an unprovoked attack on US soil?

Ok, seriously? Most of the hijackers where from Saudi, our big friend in the Middle East. The Taliban took credit, which was our like to Afghanistan. However, before we invaded Iraq, there was no Al-Qaeda or Taliban in Iraq. Saddam kept them out by sheer violence.

I think a lot of people are angry, and rightly so, about this situation. However most people are angry without experience. I've met terrorists before. I've caught them, heard them confess to kill civilians. I've handed them over to Iraqi Security Forces when I knew they had just killed friends of mine. Any soldier who has been over can probably say the same thing.

However, I joined the Army to protect America. There's a line in the oath I took to defend the Constitution. That doesn't mean I defend it so people can throw it away when they feel like it. People like that are the real ones who need to get out of the country. You have to be fair. I think our founding fathers would cringe at how soft we are, but I think they would be proud of the lengths we go to be fair about things. If we throw that away for some vengeance, we're a disgrace to our country and everything that it stands for.

Jensenman wrote: The way this is being handled now, it will become a circus and the terrorist organizations will, no matter the evidence, claim their members did not get a fair trial, thus stirring up all KINDS of crap. We are creating the next wave of bold terrorists with this whole 'civilian trial' thing.

They were going to do that anyway. No matter what. If you aren't true to who you say you are then who are you really?

Drewsifer wrote: However, I joined the Army to protect America. There's a line in the oath I took to defend the Constitution. That doesn't mean I defend it so people can throw it away when they feel like it. People like that are the real ones who need to get out of the country. You have to be fair. I think our founding fathers would cringe at how soft we are, but I think they would be proud of the lengths we go to be fair about things. If we throw that away for some vengeance, we're a disgrace to our country and everything that it stands for.

I commend your commitment and I agree that the founding fathers would cringe. I would hope though, that they would cringe more at the slow erosion of the Constitution than any malign directed at the upset of the people. Recall that it was the upset of the people that got England tossed. Those weren't softies - they just folks who's best interest wasn't served by the old boss.

We said we were a fair people - and I agree with you that you cannot say that and not give due process. As painful as it is - anything else is hypocrisy.

Drewsifer wrote: However, I joined the Army to protect America. There's a line in the oath I took to defend the Constitution. That doesn't mean I defend it so people can throw it away when they feel like it. People like that are the real ones who need to get out of the country. You have to be fair. I think our founding fathers would cringe at how soft we are, but I think they would be proud of the lengths we go to be fair about things. If we throw that away for some vengeance, we're a disgrace to our country and everything that it stands for.

Wonderfully said.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Jensenman wrote: The way this is being handled now, it will become a circus and the terrorist organizations will, no matter the evidence, claim their members did not get a fair trial, thus stirring up all KINDS of crap. We are creating the next wave of bold terrorists with this whole 'civilian trial' thing.

They were going to do that anyway. No matter what. If you aren't true to who you say you are then who are you really?

Let them come...We got these:

Datsun1500 wrote:

Drewsifer wrote: However, I joined the Army to protect America. There's a line in the oath I took to defend the Constitution. That doesn't mean I defend it so people can throw it away when they feel like it. People like that are the real ones who need to get out of the country. You have to be fair.

Just to make sure I am reading this right, you believe the non US citizen, terrorist, somehow has Constitutional Rights? You took an oath to defend the Constitution so it could be applied to everyone in the world?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_rule_%28ethics%29

edit: (to finish my thoughts) Say we compromise our values on these gents and shoot them all in the face in a gigantic public gathering. Where does it end? Who do we do it to next? Do we want that precedent set? Who decides when it is appropriate to do this? Does this apply to US citizens? The list of questions goes on and on...

Datsun1500 wrote:

Drewsifer wrote: However, I joined the Army to protect America. There's a line in the oath I took to defend the Constitution. That doesn't mean I defend it so people can throw it away when they feel like it. People like that are the real ones who need to get out of the country. You have to be fair.

Just to make sure I am reading this right, you believe the non US citizen, terrorist, somehow has Constitutional Rights? You took an oath to defend the Constitution so it could be applied to everyone in the world?

Why not? We expect all guests into this country to act according to our laws and if they break them, they get punished the same way (or deported)

As for other countries.. they are similar.. they expect us to follow their laws as well. You can ask any woman who has visited some of the more extreme mid-eastern countries about what they were expected to wear

Datsun1500 wrote: Go to any other country and demand the rights of a Citizen, let me know how that works out.

The Constitutional rights of US citizens didn't apply in Italy. Twenty two (presumed to be CIA operatives) were convicted (in absentia) for assisting Italian authorities in apprehending a suspected terrorist. Two Italian agents were also convicted.

Ironically, two high-ranking members of the Italian intelligence service were not prosecuted "in the interests of national security". Perhaps the Italians have a higher regard for their own security than for that of the US.

There is an arguable paradox in espousing the international application of Constitutional rights when other countries clearly have the sovereign right to apply their own laws. The world community does not recognize the US Constitution as the "over ruling" document for law and governance.

Drewsifer is my new ideal of an American Hero. Not that anyone else serving is not, but I'm glad that the war machine has not left all of our men and women jaded.

PHeller wrote: Drewsifer is my new ideal of an American Hero. Not that anyone else serving is not, but I'm glad that the war machine has not left all of our men and women jaded.

Drewsifer is a hero, as are all who have and are currently serving. But the universal application of Constitutional rights is a bit troublesome.

The President has stated we should "capture or kill" bin Laden. If we are now applying our laws to our enemies, the "kill" option is rendered moot. Is Drewsifer speaking on his interpretation of the oath, or is there intent to re-define the role of the military as an extension of the DOJ?

Datsun1500 wrote:

Drewsifer wrote: However, I joined the Army to protect America. There's a line in the oath I took to defend the Constitution. That doesn't mean I defend it so people can throw it away when they feel like it. People like that are the real ones who need to get out of the country. You have to be fair.

Just to make sure I am reading this right, you believe the non US citizen, terrorist, somehow has Constitutional Rights? You took an oath to defend the Constitution so it could be applied to everyone in the world?

By what you're saying, we shouldn't be allowed to put him on trial at all. If he's not entitlted to Rights, then he's not covered by our legal system.

But yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The best way to spread the ideals of freedom, and right and wrong, is to live it. It isn't bullets, or soldiers (although there is always a time and a need for those). It's showing people that you can life in world where you are entitled to certain rights. The extremists will cry, but the average person will listen. Look at Iran. I think anyone willing to live by the rules in the Constitution, deserves those Rights.

For a lack of a better place, I think he should be tried in the US. But by that standard, I think he is entitled to due process.

hmmm, i wonder what it costs to convert to radical islam and get a bus ticket to NYC. to screw this administration, it would be money well spent.

great to hear that some members of this board want the current administration to fail so badly that they would be ok with a terrorist attack on U.S. soil to make it happen........ thats just great

oldsaw wrote:

PHeller wrote: Drewsifer is my new ideal of an American Hero. Not that anyone else serving is not, but I'm glad that the war machine has not left all of our men and women jaded.

Drewsifer is a hero, as are all who have and are currently serving. But the universal application of Constitutional rights is a bit troublesome. The President has stated we should "capture or kill" bin Laden. If we are now applying our laws to our enemies, the "kill" option is rendered moot. Is Drewsifer speaking on his interpretation of the oath, or is there intent to re-define the role of the military as an extension of the DOJ?

Drewsifer, first off thanks for all you do. You also seem to have much more restraint than I; I don't know if I could watch some slimeball kill my buddies and then hand him over. I do believe he and I would be out of sight behind a wall for a few seconds.

oldsaw, thanks for reinforcing my point. Terrorists have already, by their actions, declared themselves to be operating outside of the rules of engagement as set forth in the Geneva Conventions. That means they have not only decided that they need not conduct themselves according to the rules of so called 'civilized warfare' but that by so doing they are not covered by the GC's conventions regarding POWs etc.

From: http://www.icrc.org/IHL.NSF/COM/365-570017?OpenDocument

'Article 4 of the Third Convention is constitutive in character; and the enumeration which it gives is comprehensive. If an individual not belonging to one of the categories specified is captured after committing hostile acts, he may find himself denied the right to be treated as a prisoner of war, not to mention the punishments which may be inflicted on him.'

There's a link on that page to the full text of Article 4 which describes what's expected of soldiers; basically it's to be part of a nation-state's military and to clearly identify themselves as such.

It sounds so good to say 'but we will be better than they if we run them through the justice system'. The reality is that they are using our decency against us. If that were to keep up, eventually they would win through our paralysis and the Western world as we know it would eventually cease to exist (which is the final goal of the Islamic militants). That means our system of laws would be replaced by shar'ia which means governed by strict Koranic interpetation. Maybe others want to live that way but not me.

I'm perfectly willing to live my decadent scummy Western infidel way and let the pure devout fundamentalist Islamic live his way. But if he decides that I should be put to death for not believing as he and then acts violently on that (thus trying to force his beliefs on me in the most virulent way possible: convert or die!), why it's triple tap time.

Jensenman wrote: I'm perfectly willing to live my decadent scummy Western infidel way and let the pure devout fundamentalist Islamic live his way. But if he decides that I should be put to death for not believing as he and then acts violently on that (thus trying to force his beliefs on me in the most virulent way possible: convert or die!), why it's triple tap time.

= perfect summation of this argument.

[ /thread]

GlennS wrote:

hmmm, i wonder what it costs to convert to radical islam and get a bus ticket to NYC. to screw this administration, it would be money well spent.

great to hear that some members of this board want the current administration to fail so badly that they would be ok with a terrorist attack on U.S. soil to make it happen........ thats just great

One poster applies hyperbolic sarcasm and now you perceive multiple board members are OK with another terrorist attack......... that's just great

Datsun1500 wrote: The only problem there is you think the world should live by your beliefs and systems, not theirs.

I interpreted it as meaning that WE should live by our beliefs.

Datsun1500 wrote:

Drewsifer wrote: By what you're saying, we shouldn't be allowed to put him on trial at all. If he's not entitlted to Rights, then he's not covered by our legal system.

No, what I am saying is he committed a war crime and gets a Military trial, just like the other war criminals throughout history.

Drewsifer wrote: But yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The best way to spread the ideals of freedom, and right and wrong, is to live it. It isn't bullets, or soldiers (although there is always a time and a need for those). It's showing people that you can life in world where you are entitled to certain rights. The extremists will cry, but the average person will listen. Look at Iran. I think anyone willing to live by the rules in the Constitution, deserves those Rights.

The only problem there is you think the world should live by your beliefs and systems, not theirs. The same way the Islamic guys think we should live by the rules of Islam. How is one guy fighting for what he believes is "right" different from another fighting for the same thing?

To a point you're right I suppose. You could argue that we're no different from them, ideologically. However, as I'm currently learning through Phoenix, it is a fallacy to say that everything is subjective, and all opinions are as good as any other. To oversimplify my statement, we're trying to spread the idea everyone can enjoy a certain amount of freedom, so long as they aren't a danger to anyone else. They're trying to spread a world where everyone is forced to conform to a specific religion.

It has been argued that he can't be given a military trial. He isn't in any military. He isn't a Soldier. Is that a bit of a technicality? Yes. But as I said, there are issues with anywhere we're going to stick him.