Terrorist Aquited on over 200 counts.

[JBeukema]

278 counts dropped 1 count stuck...yeah, civilian courts are a real bitch.

The fact that only one count stuck, tells you a lot...

About the failure of the American intelligence community to gather any reliable evidence through any means they're willing to have brought out into the light?

 

[JBeukema]

So let me get this straight, according to you leftists:

1) Soldiers in the field of battle now have to also become witnesses to later testify in court as well as detectives to collect evidence to be used in courts.

2) Every captured terrorist must now be shipped all the way back to the US, and given show trails. ALL of them. Costing taxpayers millions, if not billions in the long run.

3) Soldiers who captured these terrorists red-handed and are busy fighting a war must now also be rotated back to the states to testify as witnesses in court.

4) Since these terrorists are just like any other criminal, we should allow them to be able to post bail so they can freely walk the streets until they are found guilty.

You see the slipperly slope we're going down?

1) Yes

Surely you see the problem with this? Why not simply allow their reports to be entered into evidence?

2) Yes

Surely you see the feasibility concerns when it comes to this? This is where there is a case for tribunals- they can be held anywhere our military is present, from what I understand.

 

[JBeukema]

* * * *
The criminal gang that attacked the US at its embassies and here on 9/11 are not "enemies", they are "criminals" * * * *

I snipped the rest of your post, Maddy, because that one sentence jumped off the page when I skimmed your post.

You are absolutely, totally, 100% wrong.

They are NOT mere criminals. They attacked an embassy. They did so AS terrorists to affect the actions and determinations of a government.

They are THE enemy.

It astounds me that you have it so completely backwards.

You seriously could not be more wrong if your goal was to be wrong.

so Mcveigh's not a criminal?

 

[JBeukema]

you make it a fact that there is no difference ( see above) between a solider and a saboteur, terrorist etc. ....

Was the continental army an army? Were they soldiers? Or were they criminals, saboteurs, and terrorists? Depends what side you were on. Just like Bush's 'enemy combatants', they're just labels applied to serve one's own purposes.

and collateral damage tragic as it is or victims of a larger war, bombing victims from berlin to Afghanistan etc,

A stray bomb or bullet is 'collateral damage'. WTC or Dresden is targeting civilians. There is difference.

your strong emotional identification with and statements along these lines has no place in the argument unless you just want declare straight up that you see no difference, none zip zero between say; Zarqawai and private snuffy smith US Amy infantryman with a rifle...then we can just call it a day.

Depends on what they do. If Private Smith razes a Vietnamese village and kills the women and children, it's a different matter than if he only fires on armed persons present a clear and present danger.

and this-

Same excuses and justifications for carrying out fundamentally the same actions. The only difference is where you happen to be born and who you were taught the good and the bad guys are.

Moral relativism in a nutshell.

Fail. It's applying one standard equally. You're the one applying moral relativism by claiming that when they do it, it;'s bas but when we do it, that's somehow 'different'. Is OBL and his ilk are successful in creating a world caliphate, someone exactly like you will say the exact same thing you did- but they'll be throwing a fit about comparing an honourable Jihadi fighting the infidels to an evil Westerner terrorist and neocolonialist.

exit question- do you object to the Nuremberg Tribunal?

Ideally, I would have seen a German court convict Hitler and his ilk for their crimes. Just as I would see, ideally, a court in a muslim country convict OBl and his ilk. For a number of legal, ethical, and sociological reasons.

 

[JBeukema]

I've had to have said this at least 100 times. The world changed on 9-11-01

Nothing changed on 9-11.

We’ve been told that 9/11 changed everything.
Is it true?
Let’s look:

• The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11 (see this and this)

• The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before9/11. And top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change one month after Bush took office

• Cheney apparently even made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11

• The Patriot Act was planned before 9/11

• Cheney dreamed of giving the White House the powers of a monarch long before 9/11

• Cheney and Rumsfeld actively generated fake intelligence which exaggerated the threat from an enemy in order to justify huge amounts of military spending long before 9/11. And see this

• Cheney and the rest of the neocons lamented – before 9/11 – that America could not truly project its power globally without the justification of a “new Pearl Harbor”

• The government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this)

• The decision to threaten to bomb Iran was made before 9/11

• The government knew that terrorists could use planes as weapons — and had even run its own drills of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, using REAL airplanes — all before 9/11

• The government heard the 9/11 plans from the hijackers’ own mouths before 9/11

• Cheney was in charge of all counter-terrorism programs for the United States before (and on) 9/11. See this Department of State announcement, this CNN article and this essay

• It was known long before 9/11 that torture doesn’t work to produce accurate intelligence, but is an effective way to terrorize people

So did 9/11 really “change everything”? Or was it simply an excuse to implement existing plans?


source

​

 

[Liability]

I've had to have said this at least 100 times. The world changed on 9-11-01

Nothing changed on 9-11.

We’ve been told that 9/11 changed everything.
Is it true?
Let’s look:

• The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11 (see this and this)

• The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before9/11. And top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change one month after Bush took office

• Cheney apparently even made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11

• The Patriot Act was planned before 9/11

• Cheney dreamed of giving the White House the powers of a monarch long before 9/11

• Cheney and Rumsfeld actively generated fake intelligence which exaggerated the threat from an enemy in order to justify huge amounts of military spending long before 9/11. And see this

• Cheney and the rest of the neocons lamented – before 9/11 – that America could not truly project its power globally without the justification of a “new Pearl Harbor”

• The government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this)

• The decision to threaten to bomb Iran was made before 9/11

• The government knew that terrorists could use planes as weapons — and had even run its own drills of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, using REAL airplanes — all before 9/11

• The government heard the 9/11 plans from the hijackers’ own mouths before 9/11

• Cheney was in charge of all counter-terrorism programs for the United States before (and on) 9/11. See this Department of State announcement, this CNN article and this essay

• It was known long before 9/11 that torture doesn’t work to produce accurate intelligence, but is an effective way to terrorize people

So did 9/11 really “change everything”? Or was it simply an excuse to implement existing plans?


source

​

THIS: http://web.archive.org/web/20030423013539/http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/05.21B.jvb.usapa.911.p.htm

in NO WAY establishes this: "The Patriot Act was planned."

So, it would appear that your entire post is unworthy of being taken very seriously.

 

[Liability]

* * * *
The criminal gang that attacked the US at its embassies and here on 9/11 are not "enemies", they are "criminals" * * * *

I snipped the rest of your post, Maddy, because that one sentence jumped off the page when I skimmed your post.

You are absolutely, totally, 100% wrong.

They are NOT mere criminals. They attacked an embassy. They did so AS terrorists to affect the actions and determinations of a government.

They are THE enemy.

It astounds me that you have it so completely backwards.

You seriously could not be more wrong if your goal was to be wrong.

so Mcveigh's not a criminal?

No. He's not. He's nothing. He's dead.

He WAS a criminal, however.

 

[JBeukema]

http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/11/19/torture-and-the-problem-with-the-courts/

 

[theHawk]

So let me get this straight, according to you leftists:

1) Soldiers in the field of battle now have to also become witnesses to later testify in court as well as detectives to collect evidence to be used in courts.

1)Nobody said that
2)their reports can be entered into evidence
3)isn't the whole point of the intelligence community to gather evidence in order to determine who's involved in plots/attacks against the nation? Where's all the evidence they supposedly had of this guy's involvement?

2) Every captured terrorist must now be shipped all the way back to the US, and given show trails. ALL of them. Costing taxpayers millions, if not billions in the long run.

The only ones interested in show trials are those on the Right who want a quick 'Welcome. Guilty. Hang him' tribunals.

Of course, it never occurs to people that our foreign policy is a huge part of why we have this problem in the first place. When the British sent troops in response to the FF's complaints, did that not simply strengthen their resolve to fight?

3) Soldiers who captured these terrorists red-handed and are busy fighting a war must now also be rotated back to the states to testify as witnesses in court.

Again, their reports can be entered.

There is a case to be made for tribunals for many of those captured. You touched on it. Yet that case isn't being made by the right, which reveals their true concerns.

4) Since these terrorists are just like any other criminal, we should allow them to be able to post bail so they can freely walk the streets until they are found guilty.

Lots of people are denied bail. See, for instance 'flight risk'

1)Soldiers in the field of battle does not equate to "the intelligence community".

2)Since when have military tribunals ever been "show trials" put on by the right? Nice strawman.

3) Their "reports" can be entered into court, but will be shredded by any lawyer when the witness is not there to cross examine.

4) I know "lots of people are denied bail", but since we're now treating terrorists as regular criminals with constitutional rights, who is to say they will never be given bail?

 

[theHawk]

4) A serial killer or murderer is hardly ever allowed bail.

Gee, thats reassuring.

5) What slippery slope? Treating a person innocent until proven guilty? That slippery slope? Gee, how un-American of them...

Yea, treating foreign terrorists like the war criminals they are is "un-American".

 

[elvis]

depends on whose scale you're using.

 

[Father Time]

No.... we should kill them on the spot!

Period end of story.... bullet in the head kind of stuff.... brain matter on a wall kind of stuff.

Fuck em... they want us dead, and I want them dead.

You libs wouldve NEVER let us win WWII...! Ya bunch of bedwetting pussies!

So if we confront a suspect who is a suspected terrorist, kill him as you wish, and it turns out he's innocent, then what? We're sorry?

His method is also an incredibly stupid way to fight a war.

We capture a terrorist, so do we try to get information from them, hold them as ransom? Nope we kill these valuable assets on the spot so Infidel can fulfill his macho fantasy

 

[The Infidel]

No.... we should kill them on the spot!

Period end of story.... bullet in the head kind of stuff.... brain matter on a wall kind of stuff.

Fuck em... they want us dead, and I want them dead.

You libs wouldve NEVER let us win WWII...! Ya bunch of bedwetting pussies!

So if we confront a suspect who is a suspected terrorist, kill him as you wish, and it turns out he's innocent, then what? We're sorry?

His method is also an incredibly stupid way to fight a war.

We capture a terrorist, so do we try to get information from them, hold them as ransom? Nope we kill these valuable assets on the spot so Infidel can fulfill his macho fantasy

So I guess you'd say that letting a terrorist lawyer up is OK?

Thats an incredibly stupid way to fight a war.

Yes... I was being extreme. So sue me.
Hell, we cant interogate them b/c thats too harsh.... we cant smack em around b/c that will hurt their feelings... we cant demonise them b/c that makes us look bad.

Whatever....