Why try the 'terrorist' in public courts? - Page 2

AVGWarhawk · 11-25-09, 04:02 PM

I think Mookie wants to hug these guys. Perhaps they are just misunderstood and had a poor childhood resulting in doing things beyond their control.

mookiemookie · 11-25-09, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I think Mookie wants to hug these guys. Perhaps they are just misunderstood and had a poor childhood resulting doing things beyond their control.

So liberty and justice for all isn't something to live by, it's something to be mocked?

Sea Demon · 11-25-09, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

You don't get to compromise your values when they are inconvenient. What YOU are advocating is weak and sickening.

American values have never included giving enemy terrorists or foreign combatants US Constitutional protections. This is unprecedented and disgusting.

The way liberals are so busy protecting the rights of murdering terrorists these days, cheapening US citizenship, all the while spitting in the faces of the families of those who died on 9/11 confirms one more thing to me. Somewhere in America today, a few hundred more people will scrape their Obama bumper stickers off their cars.

SteamWake · 11-25-09, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

No, it makes perfect sense. The Sxith Amendment clearly states the accused is to be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed"

For US citizens.

What is to be gained here really?

Convince radical muslim militants that were not the 'evil' they are led to believe?

My instinct tells me that wont accomplish a thing.

Military tribunals were already being prepaired and Holder launched a pre-emptive strike.

Im sorry but I question the motives here.

mookiemookie · 11-25-09, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

American values have never included giving enemy terrorists or foreign combatants US Constitutional protections. This is unprecedented and disgusting.

Funny how you see the Bill of Rights as more like a "bill of perks, benefits and stuff that's kinda nice to have, but only for certain people" and not actually, you know, inalienable RIGHTS.

Sea Demon · 11-25-09, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

So liberty and justice for all isn't something to live by, it's something to be mocked?

Hey dude, Tojo and other Japanese war criminals got what they deserved without circus show trials on US soil. No US Constitutional protections for them. Apparently you don't understand what "liberty and justice" is all about. How about justice for those attacked? Where did you get these notions about "liberty and justice" for foreign terrorist murderers or foreign combatants as applied by the US Constitution?

Sea Demon · 11-25-09, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Funny how you see the Bill of Rights as more like a "bill of perks, benefits and stuff that's kinda nice to have, but only for certain people" and not actually, you know, inalienable RIGHTS.

They had rights in the military justice system. This move to the public courts is a show trial. Apparently you are blind to the damage this will cause the US.

AVGWarhawk · 11-25-09, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

So liberty and justice for all isn't something to live by, it's something to be mocked?

Since when do these guys get extented liberty? That is part of the American way. Is it part of his ways? Did his family die for these liberties that you and I enjoy? Sorry Mookie, this guy looses his liberities (not that he had any to begin with) just like any common criminal as you suggest they are. Once you break the laws life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come to a grinding halt.

AVGWarhawk · 11-25-09, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Funny how you see the Bill of Rights as more like a "bill of perks, benefits and stuff that's kinda nice to have, but only for certain people" and not actually, you know, inalienable RIGHTS.

Mookie....these guys are not part of our country. The do not get these! The Bill of Rights do not pertain to terrorists. They are not American citizens. It was null and void as a result of their doings. Again, this is new ground and needs to be handled better then the circus Holder is planning.

Sea Demon · 11-25-09, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Since when do these guys get extented liberty? That is part of the American way. Is it part of his ways? Did his family die for these liberties that you and I enjoy? Sorry Mookie, this guy looses his liberities (not that he had any to begin with) just like any common criminal as you suggest they are. Once you break the laws life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come to a grinding halt.

Correct. And to add to this, this guy has already pleaded guilty, and his attorneys have said he will use this trial as a stage to politically condemn America. I guess certain liberals believe he has an unalienable right to use taxpayer money to make a political mockery out of 9/11. I'm sorry if some liberals cannot see how disgusting this is and at what cost.

As I said before, he had rights in the military justice system. This move to a public court is just damaging.

mookiemookie · 11-25-09, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Mookie....these guys are not part of our country. The do not get these! The Bill of Rights do not pertain to terrorists. They are not American citizens. It was null and void as a result of their doings. Again, this is new ground and needs to be handled better then the circus Holder is planning.

If a foreign national commits a crime in the U.S., they are tried under the U.S. justice system. So no, you are incorrect.

Sea Demon · 11-25-09, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

If a foreign national commits a crime in the U.S., they are tried under the U.S. justice system. So no, you are incorrect.

wrong.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1540885.html

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=8106

Quote:

Roosevelt's proclamation applied to "enemies who have entered upon the territory of the United States [...] in order to commit sabotage, espionage, or other hostile or warlike acts" (p. 50). That applied only to the eight saboteurs of 1942 (and two more who tried their luck in 1945).

If a foreign national steals a beer out of a liquor store they would be dealt with in a US court. 9/11 was no simple theft. It was an act of war. As applied to "warlike acts"..9/11 fits the mold.

Skybird · 11-25-09, 04:58 PM

Guilt is not to be believed or assumed, guilt has to be proven at court. That is one of the most fundamental principles of Western legal systems and that is one of the major characteristics that enobles us over the legal systems of other cultures there are, and we should be, very, very thankful for having it the way we do, although in the name of the anti-terror-measures after 9/11 - and in reality for increasing control options by the state - this principle in parts has been inverted.

However, needing to prove guilt is what "Rechtsstaatlichkeit" (law and order? the rule of legal law?) is about, Steam Wake.

Everything else is "rotating a bottle", and who gets pointed at, gets lynched.

But I admit that the bureaucrats have managed to pervert the process of justice far beyond reason and replaced justice and reason with the dictate of bureaucratic rules about rules on rules that govern rules. This is very, very bad, and in itself as damaging to justice as is lynching.

Sea Demon · 11-25-09, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Guilt is not to be believed or assumed, guilt has to be proven at court.

A person can plead guilty.

Ducimus · 11-25-09, 05:16 PM

As far as im concerned, Terrorists are not covered under US Civil law or constitutional rights (they are not US citizens.. most of the time.), nor are they covered under the Geneva conventions, as they are not representing any branch of any armed forces of any country. They are completely outside the law is my understanding.

Frankly, here's my admittidly extreme take on it: If i had my way, as long as the evidence gathered is irrefutable, then these terrorists don't even qualify has human F'ing beings. Id have had the bastards put up against a wall and shot like a dog a long time ago. Then have them buried, face down, away from mecca, throw in a wheelbarrow's worth of pig entrails and blood, fill the graves in with a front end loader and be done with it.

Violence is the only language these bastards understand. We aren't communicating properly.

11-25-09, 04:02 PM	#16
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,257 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	I think Mookie wants to hug these guys. Perhaps they are just misunderstood and had a poor childhood resulting in doing things beyond their control. __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

11-25-09, 04:58 PM	#28
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,628 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Guilt is not to be believed or assumed, guilt has to be proven at court. That is one of the most fundamental principles of Western legal systems and that is one of the major characteristics that enobles us over the legal systems of other cultures there are, and we should be, very, very thankful for having it the way we do, although in the name of the anti-terror-measures after 9/11 - and in reality for increasing control options by the state - this principle in parts has been inverted. However, needing to prove guilt is what "Rechtsstaatlichkeit" (law and order? the rule of legal law?) is about, Steam Wake. Everything else is "rotating a bottle", and who gets pointed at, gets lynched. But I admit that the bureaucrats have managed to pervert the process of justice far beyond reason and replaced justice and reason with the dictate of bureaucratic rules about rules on rules that govern rules. This is very, very bad, and in itself as damaging to justice as is lynching. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

11-25-09, 05:16 PM	#30
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	As far as im concerned, Terrorists are not covered under US Civil law or constitutional rights (they are not US citizens.. most of the time.), nor are they covered under the Geneva conventions, as they are not representing any branch of any armed forces of any country. They are completely outside the law is my understanding. Frankly, here's my admittidly extreme take on it: If i had my way, as long as the evidence gathered is irrefutable, then these terrorists don't even qualify has human F'ing beings. Id have had the bastards put up against a wall and shot like a dog a long time ago. Then have them buried, face down, away from mecca, throw in a wheelbarrow's worth of pig entrails and blood, fill the graves in with a front end loader and be done with it. Violence is the only language these bastards understand. We aren't communicating properly.