are many citizens of the USA against putting terrorists on trial in the law courts ?
Great Britain, Spain, Australia and Indonesia are nations that have charged and placed on trial people involved in acts of terrorism and planning acts of terrorism.
Indonesia even executed the Bali bombers
I am curious as to why some people think the USA should do it any differently...
Great Britain, Spain, Australia and Indonesia are nations that have charged and placed on trial people involved in acts of terrorism and planning acts of terrorism.
Indonesia even executed the Bali bombers
I am curious as to why some people think the USA should do it any differently...
Additional Details
There is no difference with the terrorists in the UK, Indonesia, Spain and Germany ( as Ms Stevie kindly pointed out.. thank-you for that) and the AQ terrorists .. they are all linked...
the bali bombing targeted tourists from around the globe ( including US citizens) ...
Answer :
Germany as well.
Conservatives do not have faith in the Justice system or the rule of law. They also believe torture is good if we do it, bad if done to us. They do not walk the walk as far as the principles this country has led on for over two hundred years.
They constantly spew fallacies like..."this is a war...not a crime spree...." Fact is terrorism is not war when conducted in downtown London. London isn't a battlefield. They misstate the law by claiming terrorists are "enemy combatants". No, that would be the member of the armed forces from an enemy state. The proper term is "Unlawful Combatant."
Unlawful combatants can be found on "battlefields" where Taliban and Al Qaeda fight, but that is totally different and that refers to civilians who illegally take up armed-conflict against a sovereign state.
enemy combatant is a term used erroneously. It's UNLAWFUL combatant.
They can TD all day long, it doesn't change the truth that conservatives DO NOT understand what they talk about...they never let facts get in the way of a festival of ignorance.
Answer :
Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists are neither U.S. citizens nor common criminals. They are enemy combatants. They are not entitled to rights under the U.S. Constitution.
The United States does not take someone off the battlefield of any war and let them lawyer up. If you don't kill them on the spot, you interrogate them and conduct trials before military tribunals.
I don't know of any country that takes enemy combatants and lets them lawyer up in civilian courts.
Answer :
We have always put terrorists on trial before, thats nothing new. However, those are terrorists that were captured within our borders. It makes no sense to treat enemy combatants as common criminals. Much less, after capturing them on a foreign battlefield, bring them here to stand trial. Clinton treated the terrorism problem as a crime problem instead of as a war problem, and the end result was that we got more terrorist attacks.
Ms. Stevie writes: "Conservatives do not have faith in the Justice system or the rule of law."
Faith in the rule of law, we do have. Faith in the Justice system, we dont. Too often we see criminals walk free due to some silly technicality. Or given light slap on the wrist sentences by soft on crime judges.
"They constantly spew fallacies like..."this is a war...not a crime spree....""
That is not a fallacy. This is a war.
"Fact is terrorism is not war when conducted in downtown London."
Lie. Its a war no matter where conducted. 9/11 was an act of war by someone who had declared war on the United States. Where did it happen? Downtown New York City. Washington DC, and some farmers field in Pennsylvania.
"London isn't a battlefield."
Try telling that to the terrorists.
"They misstate the law by claiming Terrorists are enemy combatants."
No, that is not a mistatement of law. You havent a clue as to what "law" you are refering to.
"No, that would be the member of the armed forces from an enemy state. Unlawful combatants can be found on "battlefields" where Taliban and Al Qaeda fight, but that is totally different and that refers to civilians."
False. You dont have to be a member of an armed force of an enemy state to be a "combatant".
Main Entry: com·bat·ant
Pronunciation: \kəm-ˈba-tənt also ˈkäm-bə-tənt\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
: one that is engaged in or ready to engage in combat
A combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If a combatant follows the law of war, then they are considered a privileged combatant, and upon capture they qualify as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). An unprivileged combatant is someone, such as a mercenary, who take a direct part in the hostilities but who upon capture does not qualify for prisoner of war status.[1]
Answer :
I'm not speaking for other countries that I don' live in, if that's how they want to conduct dealings with terrorists in civilian court, good for them.
But when you clearly do an act of war, the military should take over and interrogate to the fullest, bamboo under the finger nails for information. Whatever it takes to get intel. When you've gotten all you can.. Put the bullet to the brain.
That's justice for 9/11,fort hood, and every american soldier that died.
Answer :
The difference is that we are at war. And these people are Prisoner of War... If they were not prisoners of war then fine try them in the law courts. Like we did with the first bombers of the World Trade Center. The situation is different now.
Answer :
Why put New York City at further risk, especially at the cost of 100 million dollars, when there is no good reason for it ? Military tribunals are just as fair and just ! On top of that, 0bama has proven he has no interest in keeping Americans safe !
Answer :
Because we're brainwashed by the media and politicians to believe that we're a nation of laws that only apply to American citizens and not to anyone who commits a crime on our soil. Our Founders are once again turning in their graves.
Answer :
because americans consider jihad a war, but terrorist tactics are purely criminal. its not a battlefield, and they should be entitled to every legal right other criminals have
Answer :
Because other country dont give the criminal as many rights as the US does. and another aspect is some of those terrorists we are giving a platform, were captured on foreign soil during war. Big difference
the bali bombing targeted tourists from around the globe ( including US citizens) ...
Answer :
Germany as well.
Conservatives do not have faith in the Justice system or the rule of law. They also believe torture is good if we do it, bad if done to us. They do not walk the walk as far as the principles this country has led on for over two hundred years.
They constantly spew fallacies like..."this is a war...not a crime spree...." Fact is terrorism is not war when conducted in downtown London. London isn't a battlefield. They misstate the law by claiming terrorists are "enemy combatants". No, that would be the member of the armed forces from an enemy state. The proper term is "Unlawful Combatant."
Unlawful combatants can be found on "battlefields" where Taliban and Al Qaeda fight, but that is totally different and that refers to civilians who illegally take up armed-conflict against a sovereign state.
enemy combatant is a term used erroneously. It's UNLAWFUL combatant.
They can TD all day long, it doesn't change the truth that conservatives DO NOT understand what they talk about...they never let facts get in the way of a festival of ignorance.
Answer :
Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists are neither U.S. citizens nor common criminals. They are enemy combatants. They are not entitled to rights under the U.S. Constitution.
The United States does not take someone off the battlefield of any war and let them lawyer up. If you don't kill them on the spot, you interrogate them and conduct trials before military tribunals.
I don't know of any country that takes enemy combatants and lets them lawyer up in civilian courts.
Answer :
We have always put terrorists on trial before, thats nothing new. However, those are terrorists that were captured within our borders. It makes no sense to treat enemy combatants as common criminals. Much less, after capturing them on a foreign battlefield, bring them here to stand trial. Clinton treated the terrorism problem as a crime problem instead of as a war problem, and the end result was that we got more terrorist attacks.
Ms. Stevie writes: "Conservatives do not have faith in the Justice system or the rule of law."
Faith in the rule of law, we do have. Faith in the Justice system, we dont. Too often we see criminals walk free due to some silly technicality. Or given light slap on the wrist sentences by soft on crime judges.
"They constantly spew fallacies like..."this is a war...not a crime spree....""
That is not a fallacy. This is a war.
"Fact is terrorism is not war when conducted in downtown London."
Lie. Its a war no matter where conducted. 9/11 was an act of war by someone who had declared war on the United States. Where did it happen? Downtown New York City. Washington DC, and some farmers field in Pennsylvania.
"London isn't a battlefield."
Try telling that to the terrorists.
"They misstate the law by claiming Terrorists are enemy combatants."
No, that is not a mistatement of law. You havent a clue as to what "law" you are refering to.
"No, that would be the member of the armed forces from an enemy state. Unlawful combatants can be found on "battlefields" where Taliban and Al Qaeda fight, but that is totally different and that refers to civilians."
False. You dont have to be a member of an armed force of an enemy state to be a "combatant".
Main Entry: com·bat·ant
Pronunciation: \kəm-ˈba-tənt also ˈkäm-bə-tənt\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
: one that is engaged in or ready to engage in combat
A combatant is someone who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If a combatant follows the law of war, then they are considered a privileged combatant, and upon capture they qualify as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). An unprivileged combatant is someone, such as a mercenary, who take a direct part in the hostilities but who upon capture does not qualify for prisoner of war status.[1]
Answer :
I'm not speaking for other countries that I don' live in, if that's how they want to conduct dealings with terrorists in civilian court, good for them.
But when you clearly do an act of war, the military should take over and interrogate to the fullest, bamboo under the finger nails for information. Whatever it takes to get intel. When you've gotten all you can.. Put the bullet to the brain.
That's justice for 9/11,fort hood, and every american soldier that died.
Answer :
The difference is that we are at war. And these people are Prisoner of War... If they were not prisoners of war then fine try them in the law courts. Like we did with the first bombers of the World Trade Center. The situation is different now.
Answer :
Why put New York City at further risk, especially at the cost of 100 million dollars, when there is no good reason for it ? Military tribunals are just as fair and just ! On top of that, 0bama has proven he has no interest in keeping Americans safe !
Answer :
Because we're brainwashed by the media and politicians to believe that we're a nation of laws that only apply to American citizens and not to anyone who commits a crime on our soil. Our Founders are once again turning in their graves.
Answer :
because americans consider jihad a war, but terrorist tactics are purely criminal. its not a battlefield, and they should be entitled to every legal right other criminals have
Answer :
Because other country dont give the criminal as many rights as the US does. and another aspect is some of those terrorists we are giving a platform, were captured on foreign soil during war. Big difference
No comments:
Post a Comment