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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Liability, May 16, 2012.

  1. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,064
    Defeating National Defense | Washington Free Beacon

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

    Seriously. WTF?
     
  2. theDoctorisIn
    Online

    theDoctorisIn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    30,047
    Thanks Received:
    5,803
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    East, but still West
    Ratings:
    +11,992
    So you mean that people suspected of being terrorists would entitled to a fair trial?

    That is SO HORRIBLE.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,064
    So, you think the actions of terrorists are just "crimes" and not acts of war?

    That is so ridiculous.
     
  4. theDoctorisIn
    Online

    theDoctorisIn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    30,047
    Thanks Received:
    5,803
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    East, but still West
    Ratings:
    +11,992
    Where do you draw the line? What makes someone a "terrorist"?

    Where, exactly, is the line between an "act of war" and a "crime"?
     
  5. GWV5903
    Offline

    GWV5903 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    3,367
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Ratings:
    +1,295
    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!!!

     
  6. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,064
    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.
     
  7. starcraftzzz
    Offline

    starcraftzzz Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,263
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +120
    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.
     
  8. Middleoftheroad
    Offline

    Middleoftheroad Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    589
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +54
    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?
     
  9. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,064
    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 :cuckoo:, 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.
     
  10. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,064
    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?
     

Share This Page