From the Govt'l WTF Files: Defense bill to give terrorists access to Courts?

[Liability]

Former government attorneys and defense experts fear that foreign terrorists could capitalize on a new House proposal that would afford them full protection under the U.S. legal system, potentially spurring a domestic influx of would-be terrorists who may seek to exploit the legal loophole.

The amendment, spearheaded by Reps. Justin Amash (R., Mich.) and Adam Smith (D., Wash), would implement an unprecedented reversal in longstanding U.S. policy by requiring that terrorists be prosecuted in civilian courts—a shift that would also allow them to be housed among general inmates in American prisons.

Defeating National Defense | Washington Free Beacon

How fucking STUPID are those ass-clowns Amash and Smith?

Seriously. WTF?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So you mean that people suspected of being terrorists would entitled to a fair trial?

That is SO HORRIBLE.

 

[Liability]

So you mean that people suspected of being terrorists would entitled to a fair trial?

That is SO HORRIBLE.

So, you think the actions of terrorists are just "crimes" and not acts of war?

That is so ridiculous.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So you mean that people suspected of being terrorists would entitled to a fair trial?

That is SO HORRIBLE.

So, you think the actions of terrorists are just "crimes" and not acts of war?

That is so ridiculous.

Where do you draw the line? What makes someone a "terrorist"?

Where, exactly, is the line between an "act of war" and a "crime"?

 

[GWV5903]

So you mean that people suspected of being terrorists would entitled to a fair trial?

That is SO HORRIBLE.

So, you think the actions of terrorists are just "crimes" and not acts of war?

That is so ridiculous.

Where do you draw the line? What makes someone a "terrorist"?

Where, exactly, is the line between an "act of war" and a "crime"?

Well, let's start at your home, then your parents home, and so on...

That is as good a place to start as any, right?

IT'S AN ACT OF WAR, END OF DEBATE!!!

 

[Liability]

So you mean that people suspected of being terrorists would entitled to a fair trial?

That is SO HORRIBLE.

So, you think the actions of terrorists are just "crimes" and not acts of war?

That is so ridiculous.

Where do you draw the line? What makes someone a "terrorist"?

Where, exactly, is the line between an "act of war" and a "crime"?

Seriously?

We now need to have bright line rules to "define" that which is patently obvious?

Terrorists engage in acts of violence or attempted acts of violence against a population (such as bombings, etc) as a method of inducing terror in the people in order to compel a government to act in a manner consistent with their objectives and goals.

So, for example, when al qaeda sent four hijacked passenger jets out on 9/11 to serve as bombs and missiles, and they managed to cause around 3,000 deaths of (mostly) civilians, they weren't JUST committing "crimes." They were engaged in acts of terrorism. Acts of war. And unlike uniformed soldiers of warring nations, those diseased rat twats do their deeds (like spies) while in hiding. So the rules applicable to combatants in war are NOT applicable to them.

A military tribunal suffices. HELL, it is arguably more than they deserve.

But using our own courts is wrong on a whole a variety of levels and for lots of very sound reasons.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Seriously how fucking stupid is innocent till proven guilty, not being locked up indefinitely without a trial, the right to due process, not being in jail just because someone calls you a murderer/terrorist, and the right to have a fair trial.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

So, you think the actions of terrorists are just "crimes" and not acts of war?

That is so ridiculous.

Where do you draw the line? What makes someone a "terrorist"?

Where, exactly, is the line between an "act of war" and a "crime"?

Seriously?

We now need to have bright line rules to "define" that which is patently obvious?

Terrorists engage in acts of violence or attempted acts of violence against a population (such as bombings, etc) as a method of inducing terror in the people in order to compel a government to act in a manner consistent with their objectives and goals.

So, for example, when al qaeda sent four hijacked passenger jets out on 9/11 to serve as bombs and missiles, and they managed to cause around 3,000 deaths of (mostly) civilians, they weren't JUST committing "crimes." They were engaged in acts of terrorism. Acts of war. And unlike uniformed soldiers of warring nations, those diseased rat twats do their deeds (like spies) while in hiding. So the rules applicable to combatants in war are NOT applicable to them.

A military tribunal suffices. HELL, it is arguably more than they deserve.

But using our own courts is wrong on a whole a variety of levels and for lots of very sound reasons.

And how do you prove that they were trying to do it to induce terror? Oh that's right, you don't need proof because they don't get a trial. Hell, you don't even need proof that they did it, just an accusation.
So I guess the law is that anyone accused of murder, can be held indefinetly as long as the government says so. This is what you want? Unlimited power for the government?

 

[Liability]

Seriously how fucking stupid is innocent till proven guilty, not being locked up indefinitely without a trial, the right to due process, not being in jail just because someone calls you a murderer/terrorist, and the right to have a fair trial.

It is your pathetic pseudo-thinking that is a hallmark of the problem.

Since you persist in the addled thinking that equates terrorism with criminality , you are all wussified over the prospect of meeting out justice according to the laws of war, not the laws of our civilian legal system.

 

[Liability]

Where do you draw the line? What makes someone a "terrorist"?

Where, exactly, is the line between an "act of war" and a "crime"?

Seriously?

We now need to have bright line rules to "define" that which is patently obvious?

Terrorists engage in acts of violence or attempted acts of violence against a population (such as bombings, etc) as a method of inducing terror in the people in order to compel a government to act in a manner consistent with their objectives and goals.

So, for example, when al qaeda sent four hijacked passenger jets out on 9/11 to serve as bombs and missiles, and they managed to cause around 3,000 deaths of (mostly) civilians, they weren't JUST committing "crimes." They were engaged in acts of terrorism. Acts of war. And unlike uniformed soldiers of warring nations, those diseased rat twats do their deeds (like spies) while in hiding. So the rules applicable to combatants in war are NOT applicable to them.

A military tribunal suffices. HELL, it is arguably more than they deserve.

But using our own courts is wrong on a whole a variety of levels and for lots of very sound reasons.

And how do you prove that they were trying to do it to induce terror? Oh that's right, you don't need proof because they don't get a trial. Hell, you don't even need proof that they did it, just an accusation.
So I guess the law is that anyone accused of murder, can be held indefinetly as long as the government says so. This is what you want? Unlimited power for the government?

WE still resort to something YOU seem to have trouble with. It's called "evidence."

This debate is old and stale. Repeating all the points is tiresome. Take notes this time.

IF a terrorist were captured in the very process of trying to plant a WMD in one of our civilian population centers, you'd think to yourself, "Oh Jeez. How do we establish (for his protection, since he has those by God 'rights' associated with being accused of a crime) what his 'intent' was?"

Of course, he wouldn't have been waving the al qaeda flag or wearing one of their designating uniforms since they don't have flags or designating uniforms and they aren't exactly comporting their behavior with the laws of war or any other law for that matter.

So, "proving" their "intent" might be a problem for you.

It never used to be this way. And it shouldn't be now. There is no valid legal reason to treat them differently than an enemy of a foreign nation in time of war who happens to be committing sabotage (and is caught in the act) while concealing their military rank and allegiance -- or while serving as a spy for the enemy state in time of war.

Do you know what those guys are legally entitled to?

Why on EARTH should the al qaeda fucks get better treatment?

And if we DID decide to criminally prosecute one of the fuckers in our civilian courts of law, they would necessarily HAVE to get the benefit of every "right" to which any criminal defendant is entitled. Right?

So, they get a lawyer appointed for them and maybe the lawyer decides to comply with his or her oath to zealously represent the scumbag. So she/he files motions for DISCOVERY. But oops In SOME cases, the otherwise discoverable evidence of "criminal" guilt constituting discovery material is also -- classified. It might be considered "imprudent" to publicly disclose to the fucking ENEMY how we obtained the information which the military and intelligence folks gathered. So, THEN what?

If we comply with the shit-sucker's legal rights as mere criminal defendant, we give up state secrets to the very enemy we are fighting in time of war? That sounds fucking STUPID.

If we choose NOT to be fucking stupid like that, then perhaps we refuse to share "discovery material" to which a mere criminal defendant is ENTITLED. You maybe heard about that "due process" and "equal protection" stuff? Well, there it is. When the defendant gets DENIED the discovery to which he's entitled, the trial gets shit-canned. What do we do with defendants against whom the government cannot proceed in a criminal prosecution?

We are kinda sorta OBLIGED to release them. But WAIT. Are we REALLY prepared to let the fuckers just GO?

Isn't there some form of logic that advises us that this too would be kind of fucking STUPID?

But we either do that or we don't. If we do it, we ARE fucking STUPID. IF we don't RELEASE the criminal defendant when the case gets shit-canned (or when the "evidence" cannot warrant a conviction by the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt") then why did we bother with some civilian court "trial" in the first place?

A uniformed combatant can get detained -- no trial necessary -- until the end of hostilities. [Think POW camps.] Why can't we do that for the non-uniformed ILLEGAL combatants called terrorists? Or, at the very least, why can't we try those pussies via a military tribunal instead of in a civilian court of law?

Again, WTF are they THINKING?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Federal courts are clearly the superior venue:

Myth: Terrorists have traditionally been tried in military commissions.

Fact: Federal civilian criminal courts have convicted more than 400 individuals on terrorism-related charges since 9/11. Military commissions have convicted only seven. Federal court convictions include those resulting from investigations of terrorist acts and of criminal acts by those with an identified link to international terrorism.

Myth: Military commissions are better equipped to handle terror cases.

Fact: Federal courts have more tools to try terrorists than military commissions. Federal courts, unlike military commissions, can try suspects for offenses involving fraud, immigration, firearms, and drugs. In addition, convictions for crimes of conspiracy and material support before a
military commission, rather than a federal court, face a greater likelihood of being overturned on appeal because these crimes are not generally considered war crimes.

Myth: Federal prisons cannot safely detain terror suspects.

Fact: Federal prisons hold more than 300 individuals convicted of terrorism-related offenses. None has ever escaped. According to the American correctional Association, “Corrections and law-enforcement professionals in the United States are second to none. We want to assure all Americans that the public will be safe from harm and that the terrorists will be properly and
effectively detained -- whether in Cuba or in a single facility or multiple facilities across the United States.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-...SLS-Fact-Sheet-Federal_Court_Myth_vs_Fact.pdf

 

[Liability]

Federal courts are clearly the superior venue:

Myth: Terrorists have traditionally been tried in military commissions.

Fact: Federal civilian criminal courts have convicted more than 400 individuals on terrorism-related charges since 9/11. Military commissions have convicted only seven. Federal court convictions include those resulting from investigations of terrorist acts and of criminal acts by those with an identified link to international terrorism.

Myth: Military commissions are better equipped to handle terror cases.

Fact: Federal courts have more tools to try terrorists than military commissions. Federal courts, unlike military commissions, can try suspects for offenses involving fraud, immigration, firearms, and drugs. In addition, convictions for crimes of conspiracy and material support before a
military commission, rather than a federal court, face a greater likelihood of being overturned on appeal because these crimes are not generally considered war crimes.

Myth: Federal prisons cannot safely detain terror suspects.

Fact: Federal prisons hold more than 300 individuals convicted of terrorism-related offenses. None has ever escaped. According to the American correctional Association, “Corrections and law-enforcement professionals in the United States are second to none. We want to assure all Americans that the public will be safe from harm and that the terrorists will be properly and
effectively detained -- whether in Cuba or in a single facility or multiple facilities across the United States.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-...SLS-Fact-Sheet-Federal_Court_Myth_vs_Fact.pdf

And when the day inevitably comes that the discovery procedures REQUIRE that the Government turn over some classified material (relevant to the "legal" side of the equation), who is best equipped to say "fuck no!"?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't know if you're understanding what I'm saying, so I'll give you a hypothetical.

Let's say 2 events happen in Times Square.

Incident #1 - a member of al-qaeda opens fire on a crowd of tourists, killing 10 people while screaming "Death to the infidel!"


Incident #2 - a homeless man with mental issues opens fire on a crowd of tourists, killing 10 people.

Are they both "Terrorists"? If not, what makes them different?

 

[starcraftzzz]

Seriously how fucking stupid is innocent till proven guilty, not being locked up indefinitely without a trial, the right to due process, not being in jail just because someone calls you a murderer/terrorist, and the right to have a fair trial.

It is your pathetic pseudo-thinking that is a hallmark of the problem.

Since you persist in the addled thinking that equates terrorism with criminality , you are all wussified over the prospect of meeting out justice according to the laws of war, not the laws of our civilian legal system.

Yes how pseduo of me to equal killing people to killing people

 

[Liability]

Seriously how fucking stupid is innocent till proven guilty, not being locked up indefinitely without a trial, the right to due process, not being in jail just because someone calls you a murderer/terrorist, and the right to have a fair trial.

It is your pathetic pseudo-thinking that is a hallmark of the problem.

Since you persist in the addled thinking that equates terrorism with criminality , you are all wussified over the prospect of meeting out justice according to the laws of war, not the laws of our civilian legal system.

Yes how pseduo of me to equal killing people to killing people

No. How stupid of you to EQUATE one kind of killing with all other kinds of killing.

You are a joke.

 

[Liability]

I don't know if you're understanding what I'm saying, so I'll give you a hypothetical.

Let's say 2 events happen in Times Square.

Incident #1 - a member of al-qaeda opens fire on a crowd of tourists, killing 10 people while screaming "Death to the infidel!"


Incident #2 - a homeless man with mental issues opens fire on a crowd of tourists, killing 10 people.

Are they both "Terrorists"? If not, what makes them different?

I'm not sure if YOU know what you're trying to say.

Obviously, in that example, they are not both terrorists.

The mental patient is probably not capable of forming any intent, or, if he is, it may not be the intent to compel the government to bow to his wishes.

The terrorist does have that goal/objective/intent.

There is so much that makes them different, it's difficult to even BEGIN to quantify them.

Take the crazy part out of the mental patient, and he's JUST a mass murdering piece of shit. A matter for the civilian courts of criminal justice.

Take the al qaeda scumbag as is, and he is a non uniformed illegal combatant engaged in a deliberate act of terrorism on behalf of the entity against whom we are at war. He is a matter not for the civilian criminal justice system, but for the procedures necessary in times of war to deal with the enemy who engages in such barbarism.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't know if you're understanding what I'm saying, so I'll give you a hypothetical.

Let's say 2 events happen in Times Square.

Incident #1 - a member of al-qaeda opens fire on a crowd of tourists, killing 10 people while screaming "Death to the infidel!"


Incident #2 - a homeless man with mental issues opens fire on a crowd of tourists, killing 10 people.

Are they both "Terrorists"? If not, what makes them different?

I'm not sure if YOU know what you're trying to say.

Obviously, in that example, they are not both terrorists.

The mental patient is probably not capable of forming any intent, or, if he is, it may not be the intent to compel the government to bow to his wishes.

The terrorist does have that goal/objective/intent.

There is so much that makes them different, it's difficult to even BEGIN to quantify them.

Take the crazy part out of the mental patient, and he's JUST a mass murdering piece of shit. A matter for the civilian courts of criminal justice.

Take the al qaeda scumbag as is, and he is a non uniformed illegal combatant engaged in a deliberate act of terrorism on behalf of the entity against whom we are at war. He is a matter not for the civilian criminal justice system, but for the procedures necessary in times of war to deal with the enemy who engages in such barbarism.

Hold on. I've got a better analogy, but I'm posting from an iPhone, so it takes me awhile.

 

[starcraftzzz]

It is your pathetic pseudo-thinking that is a hallmark of the problem.

Since you persist in the addled thinking that equates terrorism with criminality , you are all wussified over the prospect of meeting out justice according to the laws of war, not the laws of our civilian legal system.

Yes how pseduo of me to equal killing people to killing people

No. How stupid of you to EQUATE one kind of killing with all other kinds of killing.

You are a joke.

Yes how stupid of me to equate killing people for fun/because you hate them to killing people because you want to influence others.
So come back when your argument isn't "murdering people because of A should be treated different if you murder them due to B"
Also come back when your argument isn't "people accused of murdering people due to A should not have to be proven to be guilty to be punished"
If we lived in a world that pratcied what you want it to practice You'd be jailed for life if I reported that you were a terrorsts
however it would be better for the world if you were in jail because you are a worthless

 

[Liability]

Yes how pseduo of me to equal killing people to killing people

No. How stupid of you to EQUATE one kind of killing with all other kinds of killing.

You are a joke.

Yes how stupid of me to equate killing people for fun/because you hate them to killing people because you want to influence others.
So come back when your argument isn't "murdering people because of A should be treated different if you murder them due to B"
Also come back when your argument isn't "people accused of murdering people due to A should not have to be proven to be guilty to be punished"
If we lived in a world that pratcied what you want it to practice You'd be jailed for life if I reported that you were a terrorsts
however it would be better for the world if you were in jail because you are a worthless

You do get dumber with each passing post.

I said nothing about killing people for fun, you utter asshole.

In fact, you worthless scumbag liar, nothing I posted bears any resemblance to the crap you post about my notions.

You are clearly not bright enough to handle this topic.

Go play with some marbles or sumpin', you fucking lying hack piece of shit.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Forget about the member of al Qaeda.

New hypothetical:

Situation #1:
A radical leftwing anarchist blows up a bank, killing 50 people.

Situation #2:
A man finds out his wife is cheating on him, and blows up the bank she works, killing her and 49 other people.

Same questions as before.