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

[QUENTIN]

Conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosive (in the atomic bomb case) and first degree murder of however many people were killed as a result would be the starting point. Just like they charged McVeigh. Believe it or not, there are lots of laws in place against such activity and thus many charges against it. Acts of war, by centuries old definitions, are committed by nations.

Aside from what the courts would charge him with, Crusader and his ilk would be pissing themselves with glee. They're just praying for another terrorist attack.

Why do you use McVey? McVey was a domestic, a citizen. These people however are not. McVey was a special case in of himself, and his actions.

To continually use McVey is intentionally blurring the lines of distinction between a citizen, and a foreign national.

Yeah, you don't know anything about the law.

Foreign nationals, illegal immigrants, anyone not a US citizen who commits a crime within the US (or on US territory) is tried in US courts and afforded the same rights as a US citizen because they fall under our jurisdiction.

The same is true of US citizens who commit crimes in other countries. That is, and always has been, how the justice system works.

 

[The T]

Conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosive (in the atomic bomb case) and first degree murder of however many people were killed as a result would be the starting point. Just like they charged McVeigh. Believe it or not, there are lots of laws in place against such activity and thus many charges against it. Acts of war, by centuries old definitions, are committed by nations.

Aside from what the courts would charge him with, Crusader and his ilk would be pissing themselves with glee. They're just praying for another terrorist attack.

Why do you use McVey? McVey was a domestic, a citizen. These people however are not. McVey was a special case in of himself, and his actions.

To continually use McVey is intentionally blurring the lines of distinction between a citizen, and a foreign national.

Yeah, you don't know anything about the law.

Foreign nationals, illegal immigrants, anyone not a US citizen who commits a crime within the US (or on US territory) is tried in US courts and afforded the same rights as a US citizen because they fall under our jurisdiction.

The same is true of US citizens who commit crimes in other countries. That is, and always has been, how the justice system works.

Then I will ask you same as Senator Graham did to Eric Holder, as to precident to confer US Constitutional Rights upon foreign Nationals/POW's in a time of WAR?

Your answer reflects the AG's. He didn't KNOW either.

 

[QUENTIN]

Then I will ask you same as Senator Graham did to Eric Holder, as to precident to confer US Constitutional Rights upon foreign Nationals/POW's in a time of WAR?

Your answer reflects the AG's. He didn't KNOW either.

Actually, as I've been pointing out over and over, and as Holder mentioned at the same hearing, there are 195 cases of foreign nationals accused of terrorism-related charges tried in US Courts just since September 11, 2001. 91% of them have been found guilty, and of the remaining 9%, many were found guilty of other charges in subsequent trials and sent to prison. Those convicted of charges tied to terrorism go to Florence ADX, a supermaximum security prison from which no one has ever escaped.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090723-LS-in-pursuit-justice-09-update.pdf

Of the more famous cases you may, in your infinitely limited understanding, be aware of are Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid. Both foreign nationals tried in US Court afforded the same rights as US citizens as our justice system demands, both now serving life sentences in supermax.

You're all crying foul because you don't have an even basic understanding of the substance of the matter and laws in place and have no trust in the principles of justice on which the country was founded.

 

[QUENTIN]

The bullet point findings for anyone seeking to actually educate themselves, rather than continue to wallow in their own ignorance:

- The federal courts are continuing to build on their proven
track record of serving as an effective and fair tool for
incapacitating terrorists.

- The statutes available to the Department of Justice
for the prosecution of suspected terrorists continue
to be deployed forcefully, fairly, and with just re-
sults.

-Courts are authorizing the detention of terrorism
suspects under established criminal and immigra-
tion law authority and, now through the time-tested
common law system, are delimiting the scope of
military detention to meet the demands of the cur-
rent circumstances.

-The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA),
although subject to being improved, is working as it
should: we were unable to identify a single in-
stance in which CIPA was invoked and there was a
substantial leak of sensitive information as a result
of a terrorism prosecution in federal court.

-The Miranda requirement is not preventing intelli-
gence professionals from interrogating prisoners,
and recent court decisions have not interpreted
Miranda, even in the context of foreign law enforcement
interrogations, as a bar to criminal
prosecution.

-Prosecutors are able to make use of a wide array of
evidence to establish their cases.

-Convicted terrorists continue to receive stiff
sentences.

-The Federal Bureau of Prisons has been detaining
accused and convicted hardened terrorists in U.S.
prisons on a continuous basis since at least the
early 1990s without harm to the surrounding
communities.

 

[The T]

Then I will ask you same as Senator Graham did to Eric Holder, as to precident to confer US Constitutional Rights upon foreign Nationals/POW's in a time of WAR?

Your answer reflects the AG's. He didn't KNOW either.

Actually, as I've been pointing out over and over, and as Holder mentioned at the same hearing, there are 195 cases of foreign nationals accused of terrorism-related charges tried in US Courts just since September 11, 2001. 91% of them have been found guilty, and of the remaining 9%, many were found guilty of other charges in subsequent trials and sent to prison. Those convicted of charges tied to terrorism go to Florence ADX, a supermaximum security prison from which no one has ever escaped.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090723-LS-in-pursuit-justice-09-update.pdf

Of the more famous cases you may, in your infinitely limited understanding, be aware of are Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid. Both foreign nationals tried in US Court afforded the same rights as US citizens as our justice system demands, both now serving life sentences in supermax.

Nope WRONG. These people are POW's. We are at WAR...again, YOU are wrong. To figure precident? Look at what FDR did to 8 Nazi's during WWII.

Zacarias Moussaoui = IMMIGRANT And brought in a an immigration VIOLATION

Richard Reid= Foreign National who was aboard a US Aircraft and attempted to bring it down on a flight to MIAMI.

NEITHER of your examples are germain to this discussion. Neither were POW's. In the case of Reid? We had NOT declared WAR at the time.

Try again.

 

[QUENTIN]

Then I will ask you same as Senator Graham did to Eric Holder, as to precident to confer US Constitutional Rights upon foreign Nationals/POW's in a time of WAR?

Your answer reflects the AG's. He didn't KNOW either.

Actually, as I've been pointing out over and over, and as Holder mentioned at the same hearing, there are 195 cases of foreign nationals accused of terrorism-related charges tried in US Courts just since September 11, 2001. 91% of them have been found guilty, and of the remaining 9%, many were found guilty of other charges in subsequent trials and sent to prison. Those convicted of charges tied to terrorism go to Florence ADX, a supermaximum security prison from which no one has ever escaped.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090723-LS-in-pursuit-justice-09-update.pdf

Of the more famous cases you may, in your infinitely limited understanding, be aware of are Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid. Both foreign nationals tried in US Court afforded the same rights as US citizens as our justice system demands, both now serving life sentences in supermax.

Nope WRONG. These people are POW's. We are at WAR...again, YOU are wrong. To figure precident? Look at what FDR did to 8 Nazi's during WWII.

Zacarias Moussaoui = IMMIGRANT And brought in a an immigration VIOLATION

Richard Reid= Foreign National who was aboard a US Aircraft and attempted to bring it down on a flight to MIAMI.

NEITHER of your examples are germain to this discussion. Neither were POW's. In the case of Reid? We had NOT declared WAR at the time.

Try again.

lolwhut?

You're wrong.

On December 11, 2001, Moussaoui was indicted by a federal grand jury in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on six felony charges: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy, conspiracy to destroy aircraft, conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, conspiracy to murder United States employees, and conspiracy to destroy property. He was convicted and sentenced to six consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole.

He was a French citizen tried for terrorism in US court, convicted, sentenced, and now imprisoned in the US. Charged on immigration violations? That's just BS, totally untrue.

Reid was a foreign national attempting to commit an act of terrorism against the US within US jurisdiction. He was a British citizen tried for terrorism in US court, convicted, sentenced, and now imprisoned in the US.

Neither they nor KSM and his co-conspirators are prisoners of war.

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.

None of the aforementioned are Afghani or Iraqi soldiers, those are the countries we declared war on, so the declaration of war is meaningless and irrelevant to any of this.

You don't know what you're talking about. That's okay, you're now being supplied with the relevant information. But stop embarrassing yourself by continuing to prove just how much you don't know about any of this.

 

[The T]

Actually, as I've been pointing out over and over, and as Holder mentioned at the same hearing, there are 195 cases of foreign nationals accused of terrorism-related charges tried in US Courts just since September 11, 2001. 91% of them have been found guilty, and of the remaining 9%, many were found guilty of other charges in subsequent trials and sent to prison. Those convicted of charges tied to terrorism go to Florence ADX, a supermaximum security prison from which no one has ever escaped.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090723-LS-in-pursuit-justice-09-update.pdf

Of the more famous cases you may, in your infinitely limited understanding, be aware of are Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid. Both foreign nationals tried in US Court afforded the same rights as US citizens as our justice system demands, both now serving life sentences in supermax.

Nope WRONG. These people are POW's. We are at WAR...again, YOU are wrong. To figure precident? Look at what FDR did to 8 Nazi's during WWII.

Zacarias Moussaoui = IMMIGRANT And brought in a an immigration VIOLATION

Richard Reid= Foreign National who was aboard a US Aircraft and attempted to bring it down on a flight to MIAMI.

NEITHER of your examples are germain to this discussion. Neither were POW's. In the case of Reid? We had NOT declared WAR at the time.

Try again.

lolwhut?

You're wrong.

On December 11, 2001, Moussaoui was indicted by a federal grand jury in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on six felony charges: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy, conspiracy to destroy aircraft, conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, conspiracy to murder United States employees, and conspiracy to destroy property. He was convicted and sentenced to six consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole.

He was a French citizen tried for terrorism in US court, convicted, sentenced, and now imprisoned in the US.

Reid was a foreign national attempting to commit an act of terrorism against the US within US jurisdiction. He was a British citizen tried for terrorism in US court, convicted, sentenced, and now imprisoned in the US.

Neither they nor KSM and his co-conspirators are prisoners of war.

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.

None of the aforementioned are Afghani or Iraqi soldiers, those are the countries we declared war on, so the declaration of war is meaningless and irrelevant to any of this.

You don't know what you're talking about. That's okay, you're now being supplied with the relevant information. But stop embarrassing yourself by continuing to prove just how much you don't know about any of this.

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.

 

[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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah, I wonder why gun stores can't keep ammo on their shelves.

Not a dimes worth of difference between Libruls and Jihadists.

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.

 

[QUENTIN]

So, now that it's been clearly established there is a strong precedent for conferring the rights of US citizens on foreign nationals, that KSM and cronies are not POWs, and that the US courts have a great track record trying and convicting foreign nationals accused of terrorism, do you guys reverse course on your previous statements in light of new information or just pretend it doesn't exist?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

 

[The T]

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 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..."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-22tna7KHzI

250,000 count of murder?

700,000 counts attempted murder?

Violating a smoking ordinance?

Salivating, aren't you?

Avoiding the natural consequences of your stupid "Let's try Terrorists as Criminals" idea, aren't you?

 

[eots]

What should he be charged with?

most likely ..being for a CIA or FBI agent or informant

 

[rightwinger]

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 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

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[The T]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-22tna7KHzI

250,000 count of murder?

700,000 counts attempted murder?

Violating a smoking ordinance?

Salivating, aren't you?

Avoiding the natural consequences of your stupid "Let's try Terrorists as Criminals" idea, aren't you?

It goes hand-in-hand with The "Fairness Doctrine", and Hate-Crime legislation. Makes as much sense, Frank.

 

[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.

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.

 

[eots]

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