A terrorist detonates an atomic bomb or releases weaponized Ebola in a US City

[The T]

The fact is Frank even if some libs will never get it until a 911 happens in their town or someone that is close to them die by the hands of a terrorist. They'll change their tune fast then.

All Libs are conservative when it comes to their ever day life. They balance their check book, they live within their means. If they were true liberals why don't they practice what they preach? I mean come on they have a few extra hundred bucks a month why are they not giving that back to the IRS, or just going to the local walmart and handing it out.

You see all these policy's are fine with them because they haven't felt that pinch YET, but they soon will start to feel it and the sad thing is. Even then they will not admit it openly. They lack integrity, a character flaw of the worst kind brought to you by the Gov. Union Education system.

It's ALL politics with them. Never principle of fairness of which they have unjustly claimed patent to.

No T this is what it has come to them:

It has become a sport to them, they do not care about Politics they only care their Team is winning so they can come on some message board, boast and try to build their ego up for something they are lacking in life. Forget debating with common sense and trying to find common ground...Oh NO for that wouldn't fit into their little Sport.

I agree but would add: What is politics but bloodsport and an ego-building exercise?

 

[Terry]

The fact is Frank even if some libs will never get it until a 911 happens in their town or someone that is close to them die by the hands of a terrorist. They'll change their tune fast then.

ya it works like a charm...one good terror attack and people will surrender the freedom for security..allow the invasion of two sovereign nations..they are very effective and useful political tools that serve the systems of control very well

Yeah what was I thinking, the liberal will run and cry to their politician letting them do anything so they don't have to deal with it.

I knew the patriot act was bad!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What does that have to do with anything?

KSM isn't a prisoner of war taken off a battlefield either. He was captured in Pakistan in 2003 by Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence, not off a battlefield anywhere or even in a country we were at war with. And again:



He is not a prisoner of war. He's not a soldier of any country.

Besides, in the OP's masturbatory fantasy of a hypothetical, the individual is committing a crime in the US which would land under the jurisdiction of US courts. So like 195 other suspected terrorists since 9/11, he'd be tried in US courts, granted the right of a US citizen, charged with terrorism charges, and sent to supermax. There's quite a bit of precedent.

I nominate Quentin as most "The Poster Most Likely to be on Obama's Payroll"

The individual in my "masturbatory fantasy" is NOT COMMITTING A CRIME! It is an act of War.

Holding us a Liquor Store = Crime

Detonating atomic bomb in US city = Act of War.

Clue: Get One Today

An "act of war"?????

Who are you going to declare war against? Some lose knit band of malcontents?

How do you determine how you have won or who you are fighting? As soon as you defeat one cell they reform into another.

You can't declare war against an ideology

You must be French. Did you throw your hands up to surrender after your post?

 

[Liability]

A post ago you said the guy should NOT be charged with a crime, because it was not a criminal act, it was an act of war.

Thus, if he committed an act of war that was not criminal, then he's a POW.

Are you saying (or is it your belief that) all POWs get released to just go home at the end of hostilities?

Or, in your most informed opinion, is it possible that there may be a class of POWs who -- for one reason or another -- are not permitted to "just go home" at the end of hostilities?

By the way, there is mighty good reason not to classify non-uniformed illegal enemy combatants as "POWs" either, but for the sake of the current discussion only, let's go ahead and use that incorrect terminology.

Your companion Frank said that this hypothetical atomic bomber should not be charged with a crime. I was responding to that.

I know. Unlike you, I am able to track the conversation.

So now that you have finally caught on to that much of the premise, try answering the question. IS IT your belief that POWs must get releaseD at the end of hostiliites?

Frank, by the way, happens to be entirely and completely, totally and utterly correct.

The person who commits an act of war should NOT get charged with a crime (or 8 million counts of a crime for that matter).

A person who commits an act of war should be treated accordingly.

 

[Terry]

It's ALL politics with them. Never principle of fairness of which they have unjustly claimed patent to.

No T this is what it has come to them:

It has become a sport to them, they do not care about Politics they only care their Team is winning so they can come on some message board, boast and try to build their ego up for something they are lacking in life. Forget debating with common sense and trying to find common ground...Oh NO for that wouldn't fit into their little Sport.

I agree but would add: What is politics but bloodsport and an ego-building exercise?

True but something has to be said for Blind leading the Blind.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So a Military Tribunal is only fit for mutts and misfits like US soldiers; Jihadists get US Criminal Court. Terrific.

 

[rightwinger]

I nominate Quentin as most "The Poster Most Likely to be on Obama's Payroll"

The individual in my "masturbatory fantasy" is NOT COMMITTING A CRIME! It is an act of War.

Holding us a Liquor Store = Crime

Detonating atomic bomb in US city = Act of War.

Clue: Get One Today

An "act of war"?????

Who are you going to declare war against? Some lose knit band of malcontents?

How do you determine how you have won or who you are fighting? As soon as you defeat one cell they reform into another.

You can't declare war against an ideology

You must be French. Did you throw your hands up to surrender after your post?

Idiotic response.

Define who specifically you are at war with? Simple question for a simpleton

 

[CrusaderFrank]

An "act of war"?????

Who are you going to declare war against? Some lose knit band of malcontents?

How do you determine how you have won or who you are fighting? As soon as you defeat one cell they reform into another.

You can't declare war against an ideology

You must be French. Did you throw your hands up to surrender after your post?

Idiotic response.

Define who specifically you are at war with? Simple question for a simpleton

Were we at war with every German in WWII?

 

[rightwinger]

The person who commits an act of war should NOT get charged with a crime (or 8 million counts of a crime for that matter).

How does a person commit an act of war?

The US is now declaring war against individuals?

 

[QUENTIN]

Neither were Prisoners of WAR taken OFF a battlefield. Sorry. Senator Graham (for all his faults being an abject Repubican)...was also correct.

There IS no precident conferring RIGHTS on POW'S. AG Holder failed to highlight this, and THIS is the question.

You too, have failed.

What does that have to do with anything?

KSM isn't a prisoner of war taken off a battlefield either. He was captured in Pakistan in 2003 by Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence, not off a battlefield anywhere or even in a country we were at war with. And again:

To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant's privilege—which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner-of-war status; and francs-tireurs, terrorists, saboteurs, mercenaries and spies do not qualify.

He is not a prisoner of war. He's not a soldier of any country.

Besides, in the OP's masturbatory fantasy of a hypothetical, the individual is committing a crime in the US which would land under the jurisdiction of US courts. So like 195 other suspected terrorists since 9/11, he'd be tried in US courts, granted the right of a US citizen, charged with terrorism charges, and sent to supermax. There's quite a bit of precedent.

I nominate Quentin as most "The Poster Most Likely to be on Obama's Payroll"

The individual in my "masturbatory fantasy" is NOT COMMITTING A CRIME! It is an act of War.

Holding up a Liquor Store = Crime

Detonating atomic bomb in US city = Act of War.

Clue: Get One Today

Not only am I not on his payroll, I can't stand Obama. He's a terrible president.

Can't stand the Democratic party either. This isn't about politics. It's about the rule of law and foundational principles our country was founded on.

You can't throw out a principle when it's inconvenient, otherwise it isn't a principle. Likewise, you can't throw out the Constitution in the face of terrorism just because you're oh so frightened.

If the Russian military detonates an atomic bomb in a US city, it's an act of war. If a wacko, or group of wackos, detonates an atomic bomb in a US city, it's a massive crime.

All definitions throughout modern history have defined acts of war as the the actions of one nation against another. You can't just make shit up as you go.

What does that have to do with anything?

KSM isn't a prisoner of war taken off a battlefield either. He was captured in Pakistan in 2003 by Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence, not off a battlefield anywhere or even in a country we were at war with. And again:



He is not a prisoner of war. He's not a soldier of any country.

Besides, in the OP's masturbatory fantasy of a hypothetical, the individual is committing a crime in the US which would land under the jurisdiction of US courts. So like 195 other suspected terrorists since 9/11, he'd be tried in US courts, granted the right of a US citizen, charged with terrorism charges, and sent to supermax. There's quite a bit of precedent.

I nominate Quentin as most "The Poster Most Likely to be on Obama's Payroll"

The individual in my "masturbatory fantasy" is NOT COMMITTING A CRIME! It is an act of War.

Holding us a Liquor Store = Crime

Detonating atomic bomb in US city = Act of War.

Clue: Get One Today

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to CrusaderFrank again..."

You can go on patting each other on the back until your palms bleed, the fact is neither of you has a leg to stand on which is why you've stopped even attempting to refute all the evidence I provided that directly contradicts all of your premises and claims and switched to lame attempts at ad hominems.

 

[xsited1]

What should he be charged with?

This is clearly a man-caused disaster. Murder, no doubt, although he could have done it because the US oppressed him in some way or perhaps he had an abusive or absent father. I'd recommend life in prison with the possibility of parole after 2-5 years since he'll probably be rehabilitated by then.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The person who commits an act of war should NOT get charged with a crime (or 8 million counts of a crime for that matter).

How does a person commit an act of war?

The US is now declaring war against individuals?

Technically, only a few German Uboats attacked US shipping prior to our entry into WWII, so we should have arrested and tried the ship captains, end of story. Amiright?

 

[Liability]

The person who commits an act of war should NOT get charged with a crime (or 8 million counts of a crime for that matter).

How does a person commit an act of war?

The US is now declaring war against individuals?

Leave it to a retarded leftard to ask such a retarded question.

History -- even RECENT history -- is a complete impenetrable mystery to these liberoidal assmunchers.

We once fought a war against pirates, by the way.

 

[eots]

The person who commits an act of war should NOT get charged with a crime (or 8 million counts of a crime for that matter).

How does a person commit an act of war?

The US is now declaring war against individuals?

sure .. individuals ..on poverty.. on drugs ..on concepts and belifes...remember..you are with us...or you are with ...the terrorist

 

[QUENTIN]

So a Military Tribunal is only fit for mutts and misfits like US soldiers; Jihadists get US Criminal Court. Terrific.

A military tribunal is for the military (notice how it's right there in the name?), criminal court is for everyone else. One isn't better than the other, they're simply for totally different things.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What does that have to do with anything?

KSM isn't a prisoner of war taken off a battlefield either. He was captured in Pakistan in 2003 by Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence, not off a battlefield anywhere or even in a country we were at war with. And again:



He is not a prisoner of war. He's not a soldier of any country.

Besides, in the OP's masturbatory fantasy of a hypothetical, the individual is committing a crime in the US which would land under the jurisdiction of US courts. So like 195 other suspected terrorists since 9/11, he'd be tried in US courts, granted the right of a US citizen, charged with terrorism charges, and sent to supermax. There's quite a bit of precedent.

I nominate Quentin as most "The Poster Most Likely to be on Obama's Payroll"

The individual in my "masturbatory fantasy" is NOT COMMITTING A CRIME! It is an act of War.

Holding up a Liquor Store = Crime

Detonating atomic bomb in US city = Act of War.

Clue: Get One Today

Not only am I not on his payroll, I can't stand Obama. He's a terrible president.

Can't stand the Democratic party either. This isn't about politics. It's about the rule of law and foundational principles our country was founded on.

You can't throw out a principle when it's inconvenient, otherwise it isn't a principle. Likewise, you can't throw out the Constitution in the face of terrorism just because you're oh so frightened.

If the Russian military detonates an atomic bomb in a US city, it's an act of war. If a wacko, or group of wackos, detonates an atomic bomb in a US city, it's a massive crime.

All definitions throughout modern history have defined acts of war as the the actions of one nation against another. You can't just make shit up as you go.

I nominate Quentin as most "The Poster Most Likely to be on Obama's Payroll"

The individual in my "masturbatory fantasy" is NOT COMMITTING A CRIME! It is an act of War.

Holding us a Liquor Store = Crime

Detonating atomic bomb in US city = Act of War.

Clue: Get One Today

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to CrusaderFrank again..."

You can go on patting each other on the back until your palms bleed, the fact is neither of you has a leg to stand on which is why you've stopped even attempting to refute all the evidence I provided that directly contradicts all of your premises and claims and switched to lame attempts at ad hominems.

Jihadists have no standing under the US Constitution. NONE.

We're in Bizzaroland where US Marines must shout out Miranda warning before returning fire or capturing someone planting an IED.

US Democrats and Jihadists all want the same things out of life: end of US Civil Society

 

[The T]

The person who commits an act of war should NOT get charged with a crime (or 8 million counts of a crime for that matter).

How does a person commit an act of war?

The US is now declaring war against individuals?

Technically, only a few German Uboats attacked US shipping prior to our entry into WWII, so we should have arrested and tried the ship captains, end of story. Amiright?

Abiet 8 Such Terrorist criminals made it to our shores. Now I wonder how FDR dealt with these "criminals"?

 

[The T]

So a Military Tribunal is only fit for mutts and misfits like US soldiers; Jihadists get US Criminal Court. Terrific.

A military tribunal is for the military (notice how it's right there in the name?), criminal court is for everyone else. One isn't better than the other, they're simply for totally different things.

Nevermind that these Jhiadists that the 9/11 commission told us that al-Queida was at WAR with us? I guess YOU missed that part? Wonder why this fact escapes you?

 

[The T]

The person who commits an act of war should NOT get charged with a crime (or 8 million counts of a crime for that matter).

How does a person commit an act of war?

The US is now declaring war against individuals?

Leave it to a retarded leftard to ask such a retarded question.

History -- even RECENT history -- is a complete impenetrable mystery to these liberoidal assmunchers.

We once fought a war against pirates, by the way.

He's out of his league, and he knows it. That's why he is open of his ignorance.

 

[QUENTIN]

The person who commits an act of war should NOT get charged with a crime (or 8 million counts of a crime for that matter).

How does a person commit an act of war?

The US is now declaring war against individuals?

Technically, only a few German Uboats attacked US shipping prior to our entry into WWII, so we should have arrested and tried the ship captains, end of story. Amiright?

You can't be serious.

The German Uboats were operated by the German military in an official capacity, taking their orders from the German government. Therefore the nation of Germany was at war with us.

Fundamentalist terrorists are not representative of any national government, not on orders from any nation. They are incapable of declaring war, but as we've seen, they're capable of committing heinous crimes when our government doesn't take them seriously.