Watch the entire video where do you stand? Dont you think its wrong to have this type of indefinite detention where someone may be tried for something they have not done yet? or something that they were gonna do ten years from now? Is there any logic to this law or no what do you think does it make sense to you or no?
Watch the entire video where do you stand? Dont you think its wrong to have this type of indefinite detention where someone may be tried for something they have not done yet? or something that they were gonna do ten years from now? Is there any logic to this law or no what do you think does it make sense to you or no?
What a dumbass she is, talking about them taking power not given by the Constitution, which is what they have been doing the whole damn time!!!
Why wouldn't we want to keep the damn terrorists in prison???
Dirtbag scum belong in prison.
IMO, the best way to deal with terrorists would be to execute them.
Why wouldn't we want to keep the damn terrorists in prison???
Dirtbag scum belong in prison.
Everything they have done so far has been defying the Constitution. Terrorists @ GITMO are not Americans, so they are not protected by US Constitutional rights of a citizen. MSLSD has been overly supportive of Obama constantly, but now they're like: omg, he's trying to keep these guys in prison, what an asshole, but wait, it was a brilliant, beautiful speech.Idiot Woman wrote:
one of the most radical proposals for defying the Constitution ever proposed
IMO, the best way to deal with terrorists would be to execute them.
Last edited by nickb64 (2009-05-23 12:16:40)
If thats the case... prove it.nickb64 wrote:
Why wouldn't we want to keep the damn terrorists in prison???
Dirtbag scum belong in prison.
Who to say you're not a dirt bag scum terrorist?
For once, I agree with Maddow.
I wasn't captured by the military or CIA, and I don't want to fucking blow Americans or anyone else up just because I think my religion is true and theirs isn't. I don't think that if I fucking kill myself I will get 72 virgins in paradise.DrunkFace wrote:
If thats the case... prove it.nickb64 wrote:
Why wouldn't we want to keep the damn terrorists in prison???
Dirtbag scum belong in prison.
Who to say you're not a dirt bag scum terrorist?
Scum who would love to kill 3,000 innocent civilians belong in either a jail or a fucking grave.
Yeah, but again... has the government proven they want to do this?nickb64 wrote:
I wasn't captured by the military or CIA, and I don't want to fucking blow Americans or anyone else up just because I think my religion is true and theirs isn't. I don't think that if I fucking kill myself I will get 72 virgins in paradise.DrunkFace wrote:
If thats the case... prove it.nickb64 wrote:
Why wouldn't we want to keep the damn terrorists in prison???
Dirtbag scum belong in prison.
Who to say you're not a dirt bag scum terrorist?
Scum who would love to kill 3,000 innocent civilians belong in either a jail or a fucking grave.
inb4 thought policeTurquoise wrote:
Yeah, but again... has the government proven they want to do this?nickb64 wrote:
I wasn't captured by the military or CIA, and I don't want to fucking blow Americans or anyone else up just because I think my religion is true and theirs isn't. I don't think that if I fucking kill myself I will get 72 virgins in paradise.DrunkFace wrote:
If thats the case... prove it.
Who to say you're not a dirt bag scum terrorist?
Scum who would love to kill 3,000 innocent civilians belong in either a jail or a fucking grave.
If thats the case... prove it.nickb64 wrote:
I wasn't captured by the military or CIA, and I don't want to fucking blow Americans or anyone else up just because I think my religion is true and theirs isn't. I don't think that if I fucking kill myself I will get 72 virgins in paradise.DrunkFace wrote:
If thats the case... prove it.nickb64 wrote:
Why wouldn't we want to keep the damn terrorists in prison???
Dirtbag scum belong in prison.
Who to say you're not a dirt bag scum terrorist?
Scum who would love to kill 3,000 innocent civilians belong in either a jail or a fucking grave.
You're lying. I know what you're up to.nickb64 wrote:
I wasn't captured by the military or CIA, and I don't want to fucking blow Americans or anyone else up just because I think my religion is true and theirs isn't. I don't think that if I fucking kill myself I will get 72 virgins in paradise.DrunkFace wrote:
If thats the case... prove it.nickb64 wrote:
Why wouldn't we want to keep the damn terrorists in prison???
Dirtbag scum belong in prison.
Who to say you're not a dirt bag scum terrorist?
Scum who would love to kill 3,000 innocent civilians belong in either a jail or a fucking grave.
Looks like Obama realizes the serious nature of keeping these dangerous terrorists confined...
or he just wants to keep everyone liking him...by seeing which way the wind blows...
and Rachel Mandow... i love that guy... she/he is a sadder version of keith doberman
or he just wants to keep everyone liking him...by seeing which way the wind blows...
and Rachel Mandow... i love that guy... she/he is a sadder version of keith doberman
Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-05-23 13:34:24)
Love is the answer
Prove they don't. I trust and believe the US military/CIA more than a bunch of whinny liberal Europeons and Democraps.DrunkFace wrote:
If thats the case... prove it.nickb64 wrote:
I wasn't captured by the military or CIA, and I don't want to fucking blow Americans or anyone else up just because I think my religion is true and theirs isn't. I don't think that if I fucking kill myself I will get 72 virgins in paradise.DrunkFace wrote:
If thats the case... prove it.
Who to say you're not a dirt bag scum terrorist?
Scum who would love to kill 3,000 innocent civilians belong in either a jail or a fucking grave.
Apart from the fact they get shit wrong, what exactly are they telling you which that you trust, if they can't prove anything?Lotta_Drool wrote:
Prove they don't. I trust and believe the US military/CIA more than a bunch of whinny liberal Europeons and Democraps.DrunkFace wrote:
If thats the case... prove it.nickb64 wrote:
I wasn't captured by the military or CIA, and I don't want to fucking blow Americans or anyone else up just because I think my religion is true and theirs isn't. I don't think that if I fucking kill myself I will get 72 virgins in paradise.
Scum who would love to kill 3,000 innocent civilians belong in either a jail or a fucking grave.
This guys a terrorist, I'm the US government so you have to believe me. Jeezus fucking christ, why don't you just bend over at let them shove thier dick up your arse while your down there licking their balls.
they have released people they took into custody on informats testimony. Infact they have release so many to a fault because some have later attacked US troops.DrunkFace wrote:
Apart from the fact they get shit wrong, what exactly are they telling you which that you trust, if they can't prove anything?Lotta_Drool wrote:
Prove they don't. I trust and believe the US military/CIA more than a bunch of whinny liberal Europeons and Democraps.DrunkFace wrote:
If thats the case... prove it.
This guys a terrorist, I'm the US government so you have to believe me. Jeezus fucking christ, why don't you just bend over at let them shove thier dick up your arse while your down there licking their balls.
The Military/CIA isn't evil, you are just stupid.
omg here come the future policeblademaster wrote:
Dont you think its wrong to have this type of indefinite detention where someone may be tried for something they have not done yet? or something that they were gonna do ten years from now? Is there any logic to this law or no what do you think does it make sense to you or no?
Nature is a powerful force. Those who seek to subdue nature, never do so permanently.
Theres what 300 million is the US?Lotta_Drool wrote:
they have released people they took into custody on informats testimony. Infact they have release so many to a fault because some have later attacked US troops.DrunkFace wrote:
Apart from the fact they get shit wrong, what exactly are they telling you which that you trust, if they can't prove anything?Lotta_Drool wrote:
Prove they don't. I trust and believe the US military/CIA more than a bunch of whinny liberal Europeons and Democraps.
This guys a terrorist, I'm the US government so you have to believe me. Jeezus fucking christ, why don't you just bend over at let them shove thier dick up your arse while your down there licking their balls.
The Military/CIA isn't evil, you are just stupid.
So lets just arrest them all and hold them indefinitely so some (your words) might not commit a crime.
Coming from you, that's a great endorsement. Let's all forget about the second amendment. Lotta_Drool's vouching for these guys.Lotta_Drool wrote:
they have released people they took into custody on informats testimony. Infact they have release so many to a fault because some have later attacked US troops.DrunkFace wrote:
Apart from the fact they get shit wrong, what exactly are they telling you which that you trust, if they can't prove anything?Lotta_Drool wrote:
Prove they don't. I trust and believe the US military/CIA more than a bunch of whinny liberal Europeons and Democraps.
This guys a terrorist, I'm the US government so you have to believe me. Jeezus fucking christ, why don't you just bend over at let them shove thier dick up your arse while your down there licking their balls.
The Military/CIA isn't evil, you are just stupid.
You can tell us where all those WMD are then.Drool wrote:
I trust and believe the US military/CIA more than a bunch of whinny liberal Europeons and Democraps.
Fuck Israel
What? Her entire rant makes no sense at all.
Where, may I ask, do 'conspiracy to commit' crimes fall then? Surely they are no different, and surely there is consensus that they are needed.
Where, may I ask, do 'conspiracy to commit' crimes fall then? Surely they are no different, and surely there is consensus that they are needed.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Per international treaties (like the GC), due process isn't required until hostilities are ended. Hostilities are not ended. Thus due process (or release) is not required.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, but again... has the government proven they want to do this?nickb64 wrote:
I wasn't captured by the military or CIA, and I don't want to fucking blow Americans or anyone else up just because I think my religion is true and theirs isn't. I don't think that if I fucking kill myself I will get 72 virgins in paradise.DrunkFace wrote:
If thats the case... prove it.
Who to say you're not a dirt bag scum terrorist?
Scum who would love to kill 3,000 innocent civilians belong in either a jail or a fucking grave.
Lulz at Maddow (no legal education/training) preaching Constitutional Law to Obama...who used to teach Constitutional Law.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
In another thread, we've been discussing the details of the GC. TSI has made some interesting points. I hope he doesn't mind, but I'd like to show a post that I think might provide some material for discussion here.FEOS wrote:
Per international treaties (like the GC), due process isn't required until hostilities are ended. Hostilities are not ended. Thus due process (or release) is not required.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, but again... has the government proven they want to do this?nickb64 wrote:
I wasn't captured by the military or CIA, and I don't want to fucking blow Americans or anyone else up just because I think my religion is true and theirs isn't. I don't think that if I fucking kill myself I will get 72 virgins in paradise.DrunkFace wrote:
If thats the case... prove it.
Who to say you're not a dirt bag scum terrorist?
Scum who would love to kill 3,000 innocent civilians belong in either a jail or a fucking grave.
Lulz at Maddow (no legal education/training) preaching Constitutional Law to Obama...who used to teach Constitutional Law.
So, I guess the question becomes, have we really declared an official war here? Also, given asymmetrical warfare itself, how exactly can we classify those we've captured, since they don't serve an official military?TSI wrote:
Depends what you mean by "due process". Investigations and trials for war crimes of foreign nationals (Milosevic, Karadzic, etc...) can't start until the war has ended, yes. But the treatment (including trial) of prisoners (of war and otherwise) still has to comply with the GC. So if the US wants to try the Gitmo detainees, it has to follow the GC rules in doing so, which is currently not the case. I would be very interested to see the deatils of the actual charges; I don't think they are valid.Turquoise wrote:
FEOS made the claim in another thread that due process doesn't apply until hostilities have ended. Is that true?TSI wrote:
No. War doesn't supersede them. Have you heard of jus in bello? It stipulates that you have to conduct war under the principles of compassion and chivalry.
Violators of these constructs, such as the stateless combatants the US picked up, must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial" (Fourth Geneva Convention (in force 1950), article 5). As the ICTY demonstrated in the Celebici case, these people do exist. The US has set up "courts" to try them, but hasn't respected its own laws in doing so. Problem, no?
These people, although they've violated International Humanitarian Law, are still to be treated with respect. Worse still, the US has tortured many of them (illegal) and has not all are found guilty either. Essentially then, the US is violating the GC.
Now, for your second bit. These treaties form the backbone of international law. If the US unilaterally decides that they no longer apply because they don't want it to, then the US has sunk to the level of Al-Qaeda. "They did it so we did it" negates its moral standing. I don't think that would be in the US' interest.
You also say "different era". How so? Asymmetrical conflicts began in the 1950s, and that's part of the reason why they were signed. In fact, I'd say they are more relevant now than ever.
However, were I before the military court or even Congress, I would state that the US technically hasn't declared war on any state--thus, there is no formal hostility. In that way, the detainees should be tried as civilians. At the very least, it should treat them as foreign nationals, i.e. try to extradite to country of citizenship. I do realize that this possibility is very slim, but it's worth exploring. I haven't studied enough US law to know exactly how I could make the civilian claim, but that's only an alternative. The international law bit is very clear.
Prolonged detention without charge or trial???? who thought this garbage up. You don't just lock people up, it the most basic fundamental of criminal law that in order for a system of/for justice to be just, the law must be known. They must have some real brainiacs working there that don't see the forest for the trees. The answer is really really simple.
here's how you do it
Pass laws making it illegal to do what these guys were actually doing. its that simple. Make a criminal law that makes act X illegal and make the punishment very severe as in life without parole. for example.
Law A. it is illegal for any person any where in the world to be a member of X Terrorist group, punishment life in prison no parole. When you write the law you reference to a schedule of terrorist groups that are maintained by the Justice department just like a list of narcotics is maintained in our drug laws. Of course top of the list would be Al Quida.
Law B. It is illegal for any person, any where in the world to give financial aid to a terrorist groups on the schedule of terrorist groups, punishment life in prison.
Law C. And this one would be the easiest. make it illegal to any person anywhere in the world to assault, shoot at, or cause harm to a member of the American Armed forces, punishment life in prison without parole, exception for people who are regular members in another nation's army who would then be treated under the Geneva Convention.
Its that simple. Then you have a trial, you bring the guy before the court, your armed forces personal are the witnesses who say this guy is an irregular who was caught on the battle field shooting at us. Guilty life in prison. Then you don't even have to get into sensitive national security stuff.
You go to apprehend someone suspected of being a terrorist and then start shooting at you, bingo, life in prison.
This would be a heck of a lot easier than future pre-crime, conspiracy laws, indefinite detention or secret trials or trials with sealed evidence vital to national security.
Forest and trees people!!! forest and trees.
Man, give me the job and I'll fix it.
here's how you do it
Pass laws making it illegal to do what these guys were actually doing. its that simple. Make a criminal law that makes act X illegal and make the punishment very severe as in life without parole. for example.
Law A. it is illegal for any person any where in the world to be a member of X Terrorist group, punishment life in prison no parole. When you write the law you reference to a schedule of terrorist groups that are maintained by the Justice department just like a list of narcotics is maintained in our drug laws. Of course top of the list would be Al Quida.
Law B. It is illegal for any person, any where in the world to give financial aid to a terrorist groups on the schedule of terrorist groups, punishment life in prison.
Law C. And this one would be the easiest. make it illegal to any person anywhere in the world to assault, shoot at, or cause harm to a member of the American Armed forces, punishment life in prison without parole, exception for people who are regular members in another nation's army who would then be treated under the Geneva Convention.
Its that simple. Then you have a trial, you bring the guy before the court, your armed forces personal are the witnesses who say this guy is an irregular who was caught on the battle field shooting at us. Guilty life in prison. Then you don't even have to get into sensitive national security stuff.
You go to apprehend someone suspected of being a terrorist and then start shooting at you, bingo, life in prison.
This would be a heck of a lot easier than future pre-crime, conspiracy laws, indefinite detention or secret trials or trials with sealed evidence vital to national security.
Forest and trees people!!! forest and trees.
Man, give me the job and I'll fix it.
Didn't the Supreme Court make a ruling that essentially invalidated indefinite detention? I might be missing something, though.
Of US citizens.nukchebi0 wrote:
Didn't the Supreme Court make a ruling that essentially invalidated indefinite detention? I might be missing something, though.
Non-US citizens captured on the battlefield can be held without charge or trial until hostilities are ended, per the Geneva Convention.
Hostilities have not ended.
@ Diesel: Domestic law does not apply to these guys. It only applies if they violated US law inside the US or its territories.
Last edited by FEOS (2009-06-08 05:38:59)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
And they are never going to.FEOS wrote:
Hostilities have not ended.
I thought there was a ruling that they had to be brought before a court at some point.
Fuck Israel
One of the many questionable "advantages" of waging war on concepts that will always exist. There are so many actions carried out that are justified solely on poor, circular logic, and are completely at odds with the moral high ground rhetoric spouted in the past century. It's saddening.FEOS wrote:
Of US citizens.nukchebi0 wrote:
Didn't the Supreme Court make a ruling that essentially invalidated indefinite detention? I might be missing something, though.
Non-US citizens captured on the battlefield can be held without charge or trial until hostilities are ended, per the Geneva Convention.
Hostilities have not ended.
Last edited by mikkel (2009-06-08 08:34:29)