Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Terrorists to be tried Federally

mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 1:33:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Khaleid sheik Mohammed and his terrorist buddies, by the Obama Administrations decree, are set to now be tried in a NY Federal court instead of the Military tribunals
set up by congress for their ilk.

Do terrorist count as individuals carrying out a war, in an illegal manner.
-and so deserve to be tried as "illegal combatants"
Or do they count as criminals.
-and deserve to be tried according to criminal law

*Also I wanted to point out that individuals who do fight on behalf of their country, in an illegal manner, who are captured without uniforms, and pretending to be non-combatants, they are not given the protections of international treaties on war like the geneva convention.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 4:39:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 1:33:04 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Khaleid sheik Mohammed and his terrorist buddies,
The terrorists not on top are called terrorists.
The terrorists on top are called states, nations, and governments.

Do terrorist count as individuals carrying out a war, in an illegal manner.
-and so deserve to be tried as "illegal combatants"
Excuse me, what is a "legal combatant"?
Or do they count as criminals.
-and deserve to be tried according to criminal law
So "legal combatants" are tried under criminal law?

*Also I wanted to point out that individuals who do fight on behalf of their country, in an illegal manner, who are captured without uniforms, and pretending to be non-combatants, they are not given the protections of international treaties on war like the geneva convention.
Oh, so as long as you're in a uniform, you're a legal combatant?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 4:52:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 4:39:25 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
The terrorists not on top are called terrorists.
The terrorists on top are called states, nations, and governments.

Also, the individuals who get the award for "most deluded" tend to be those on the religious right and those that support anarchism as a viable form of for peaceful existence.

Excuse me, what is a "legal combatant"?

Those that fight or do direct work for the armed forces of a state or organization that your state or organization has declared war against.

So "legal combatants" are tried under criminal law?

Yes, because legal combatants fall under various treatises or domestic laws which state that prisoners of war, if they are to be tried, will be tried under a judicial system which is impartial and fair. Usually this happens under the guise of an international body like the United Nations or the International Criminal Court, though it can take place domestically as well. Can't think of any case off the top of my head, though.

Oh, so as long as you're in a uniform, you're a legal combatant?

As long as you're actually apart of a recognized and declared arm of the armed forces, you are a legal combatant. There is some other individuals it covers as well, like civilian operators and/or recognized militias.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 5:12:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 4:39:25 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:

Oh, so as long as you're in a uniform, you're a legal combatant?

According to current international treaties and law? Yes
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 5:18:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'd say "legal combatants" aren't usually tried at all unless they commited some criminal law. They are just supposed to be detained, POW camp stuff.

Illegal combatants: spies and sabateurs (and now terrorists, so I thought?) aren't treated as POW's but rather are kind of in a state of limbo (usually they just get hung), that is until congress passed legislation allowing military tribunals to deal with such cases.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 5:27:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 5:18:42 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I'd say "legal combatants" aren't usually tried at all unless they commited some criminal law. They are just supposed to be detained, POW camp stuff.

That is true, though some, like generals and those that commit crimes against humanity, are tied. I don't think the individual soldiers are unless under the circumstances you posited.

Illegal combatants: spies and sabateurs (and now terrorists, so I thought?) aren't treated as POW's but rather are kind of in a state of limbo (usually they just get hung), that is until congress passed legislation allowing military tribunals to deal with such cases.

I can see why these terrorists are tried as legal combatants. The US has been fighting against their organized group - al-Qaedea - for 8 years now. They've recognized the group as a threat, and they can even pinpoint the various arms of the organization which plan, or act out those plans. Under all definitions, Al-Qaeda falls under a legitimate fighting force and those within the structure fall under legitimate combatants.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 5:46:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 4:52:31 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/13/2009 4:39:25 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
The terrorists not on top are called terrorists.
The terrorists on top are called states, nations, and governments.

Also, the individuals who get the award for "most deluded" tend to be those on the religious right and those that support anarchism as a viable form of for peaceful existence.

Awards are, as far as I can tell, a democracy. I have little problem in getting the "most deluded" award from a group of schizophrenics.

It's kind of sad now that you've posted this. Your argument that I was being childish was starting to make some sense to me, but hey, if you like it this way I'm perfectly fine with it too. I'll just track your posts and every time I'm pissed off I'll throw something at you. You were wondering why I unfriended you? If I didn't before, I'd do it now. I'd do it again, but I already removed you :P
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 5:51:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 5:46:17 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
It's kind of sad now that you've posted this. Your argument that I was being childish was starting to make some sense to me, but hey, if you like it this way I'm perfectly fine with it too. I'll just track your posts and every time I'm pissed off I'll throw something at you. You were wondering why I unfriended you? If I didn't before, I'd do it now. I'd do it again, but I already removed you :P

You're much too sensitive mate. I might find your beliefs a little wacky, but I think you're out of a rather sane strain. But, fine, throw the book at me. I'm a pretty big target.

Oh, and did you unfriend me? Oh dear.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 6:29:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I disagree with Obama on this one. Not only do these war criminals not deserve a trial, but they don't want one. This is straight up embarrassing. Who are we impressing? The Europeans? The Canadians? Big deal. This is making America look ridiculous. I understand the reasons behind Obama's decision... but they suck.
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 6:30:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 6:29:41 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I disagree with Obama on this one. Not only do these war criminals not deserve a trial, but they don't want one. This is straight up embarrassing. Who are we impressing? The Europeans? The Canadians? Big deal. This is making America look ridiculous. I understand the reasons behind Obama's decision... but they suck.

What are your reasons behind this position, Lwerd?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 6:42:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Basically I see no reason to give them a citizens trial. Even if you list the potential benefits, none of them are worth it in comparison to making us look ridiculous (and seen as weak). Do you really think our foreign policy would gain any respect because we're treating these people humanely? I'm not saying we have to torture people but we don't have to ignore the fact that they're WAR KILLERS who killed thousands. They're not citizens, they don't WANT the rights of citizens, they're not going to get off anyway... there's just no justifiable reason. Any reasons pale in drastic comparison to the alternatives (military trials or just simply no damn trial at all, imo).
President of DDO
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 6:49:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It's not a citezens trial thats at question. I have no prob. trying a perp from a foreign country in our criminal courts.

The real issue is they were attacking the United States of America as a whole.
And they deserve to be tried for their actions. They murdered thousands, but didn't murder them as individuals, they attacked them in their attack on the U.S. generally.

They are at war with us. They acted in order to harm the country. They don't deserve to be tried as mere criminals. They committed crimes against humanity, war crimes.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 6:53:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I really can't stand the fact that those which are, beyond a doubt, guilty, are still alive. The most humane treatment they should get is the noose.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 6:55:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 6:42:31 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Basically I see no reason to give them a citizens trial. Even if you list the potential benefits, none of them are worth it in comparison to making us look ridiculous (and seen as weak). Do you really think our foreign policy would gain any respect because we're treating these people humanely? I'm not saying we have to torture people but we don't have to ignore the fact that they're WAR KILLERS who killed thousands. They're not citizens, they don't WANT the rights of citizens, they're not going to get off anyway... there's just no justifiable reason. Any reasons pale in drastic comparison to the alternatives (military trials or just simply no damn trial at all, imo).

I fail to see how it makes the US look "weak." Using the institutions that guarantee rights and freedoms to the citizens of the country to not only legitimately charge these attackers with their crimes, but to carry out punishments that would be no less severe than if they had a military tribunal. It shows the US has proper resolve, and I think it is a great move on the part of the Obama administration.

By saying that "hey, they're terrorists and killed others, so they don't deserve the judicial system," is basically saying that there shouldn't be one at all. There are no varying degrees to which you can pin a judicial system on if it is to be legitimate - everyone must have their day in court, regardless of what they've done. This is why we charge those that plan genocide, or commit acts of mass murder. It might not be emotionally satisfying to victims, but that is something I consider worth risking to maintain the integrity of the rights that individuals are entitled to.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:00:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 6:55:57 PM, Volkov wrote:
I fail to see how it makes the US look "weak."

I see it.

Using the institutions that guarantee rights and freedoms to the citizens of the country to not only legitimately charge these attackers with their crimes, but to carry out punishments that would be no less severe than if they had a military tribunal. It shows the US has proper resolve, and I think it is a great move on the part of the Obama administration.

This argument is self-defeating as the terrorists are not citizens.

By saying that "hey, they're terrorists and killed others, so they don't deserve the judicial system," is basically saying that there shouldn't be one at all. There are no varying degrees to which you can pin a judicial system on if it is to be legitimate - everyone must have their day in court, regardless of what they've done. This is why we charge those that plan genocide, or commit acts of mass murder. It might not be emotionally satisfying to victims, but that is something I consider worth risking to maintain the integrity of the rights that individuals are entitled to.

Uhh, this is why we have war tribunals. . .
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:05:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 7:00:45 PM, Nags wrote:
This argument is self-defeating as the terrorists are not citizens.

They are legal combatants. And since when is treating someone that killed citizens as a non-citizen a good idea? Should we deny foreign-born individuals the right to a fair trial because they weren't born in the US? Jeesh.

Judiciary is decided based on what the crime is, and where it took place - not whether or not the person is of a certain background or legal status. Illegal immigrants are given trials just the same. Why should terrorists, even if they were not legal combatants, be treated any different?

Uhh, this is why we have war tribunals. . .

War tribunals usually prosecute actions that happen in the duration of a war, and usually in a war zone. 9/11 falls under neither of those categories.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:06:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 6:55:57 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/13/2009 6:42:31 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Basically I see no reason to give them a citizens trial. Even if you list the potential benefits, none of them are worth it in comparison to making us look ridiculous (and seen as weak). Do you really think our foreign policy would gain any respect because we're treating these people humanely? I'm not saying we have to torture people but we don't have to ignore the fact that they're WAR KILLERS who killed thousands. They're not citizens, they don't WANT the rights of citizens, they're not going to get off anyway... there's just no justifiable reason. Any reasons pale in drastic comparison to the alternatives (military trials or just simply no damn trial at all, imo).

I fail to see how it makes the US look "weak." Using the institutions that guarantee rights and freedoms to the citizens of the country to not only legitimately charge these attackers with their crimes, but to carry out punishments that would be no less severe than if they had a military tribunal. It shows the US has proper resolve, and I think it is a great move on the part of the Obama administration.

By saying that "hey, they're terrorists and killed others, so they don't deserve the judicial system," is basically saying that there shouldn't be one at all. There are no varying degrees to which you can pin a judicial system on if it is to be legitimate - everyone must have their day in court, regardless of what they've done. This is why we charge those that plan genocide, or commit acts of mass murder. It might not be emotionally satisfying to victims, but that is something I consider worth risking to maintain the integrity of the rights that individuals are entitled to.

They don't deserve a day in our Criminal courts. They deserve one in our military ones. Do you think other war criminals were availed of the processes of our criminal courts?? NO. Why b/c nobody wanted to give them the slightest chance of getting off on bull.

Plus you end up getting one freaking crazy on the jury and... Poof! they're innocent!
Plus the congress already passed a law which deals specifically with how they ought be tried.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:09:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Foreigners are regularly tried in our courts. that's not a good argument.

And they're not "legal" combatants. They're illegal ones. Just as any of our military would be if they snuck on planes, out of uniform, to run them into buildings.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:11:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 6:55:57 PM, Volkov wrote:

I fail to see how it makes the US look "weak." Using the institutions that guarantee rights and freedoms to the citizens of the country to not only legitimately charge these attackers with their crimes, but to carry out punishments that would be no less severe than if they had a military tribunal. It shows the US has proper resolve, and I think it is a great move on the part of the Obama administration.

Volkov, in some cases, you are much too liberal. This is one of them. How is it showing "proper resolve" that we are wasting tax payer dollars to give them a trial? What can possibly be gained out of giving them a trial except for showing oh how humane we are? Give me a break. It's ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason for these people to have a trial considering the things that I said: they're not citizens, they don't want to be citizens, they admit to their crimes, they're blatantly guilty, and most of all - they don't WANT a trial. The result is going to be the same regardless and we all know that. If we want to be respected and revered by the countries that MATTER (the ones who actually want to attack us or would attack us), this is just retarded. Taking the moral high road in this case accomplishes nothing of substance.

By saying that "hey, they're terrorists and killed others, so they don't deserve the judicial system," is basically saying that there shouldn't be one at all. There are no varying degrees to which you can pin a judicial system on if it is to be legitimate - everyone must have their day in court, regardless of what they've done. This is why we charge those that plan genocide, or commit acts of mass murder. It might not be emotionally satisfying to victims, but that is something I consider worth risking to maintain the integrity of the rights that individuals are entitled to.

This is such BS, it's not even funny. They have no right to receive the benefits of the US: the country they attacked. I agree that they made an attack on our nation; not individuals. No, not everyone must have their day in court - as I said, ESPECIALLY if they're not citizens, they don't WANT to be treated as citizens, they had the mental capacity to carry out their pre-meditated crimes and we're dealing with straight up war criminals. If we were in Afghanistan, and some guy shot at me, I'd shoot back. I wouldn't seek to capture him and give him a trial. Being too sissy liberal in this regard is a joke. I'm surprised that you'd be this unreasonable. As I said, I understand the whole "Oh we're so proper and civil" mentality, but in the end it's not worth it.
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:13:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 7:06:50 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
They don't deserve a day in our Criminal courts. They deserve one in our military ones. Do you think other war criminals were availed of the processes of our criminal courts?? NO. Why b/c nobody wanted to give them the slightest chance of getting off on bull.

They might not fall under the military tribunal system. They may be legal combatants, and I would consider them as such, as I really don't have an issue with the tribunal system - but in the case of being tried in a civilian court, there isn't much of a difference. Plus, they get due process as civilians, which makes sense since 9/11 didn't occur in a war zone, nor did it occur when the war was declared.

Plus you end up getting one freaking crazy on the jury and... Poof! they're innocent!

Republican fear-mongering talking point. For shame.

Plus the congress already passed a law which deals specifically with how they ought be tried.

Looks like no one listened.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:14:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 7:09:19 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Foreigners are regularly tried in our courts. that's not a good argument.

Agreed.

And they're not "legal" combatants. They're illegal ones. Just as any of our military would be if they snuck on planes, out of uniform, to run them into buildings.

Well, I think you're kind of right there, as I ponder on it. But doesn't that make a military tribunal even less of an option?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:17:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 7:13:38 PM, Volkov wrote:

Plus you end up getting one freaking crazy on the jury and... Poof! they're innocent!

Republican fear-mongering talking point. For shame.

Hmm... No. that would be what I'm actually worried about. And I'm not a republican. Just a New Yorker who was here when they killed three thousand people or so, and who had to worry about a family members coming home. (which he did though covered in dust, and with the most awful face on I'd ever seen)

Plus the congress already passed a law which deals specifically with how they ought be tried.

Looks like no one listened.

Indeed.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:19:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 7:14:43 PM, Volkov wrote:

And they're not "legal" combatants. They're illegal ones. Just as any of our military would be if they snuck on planes, out of uniform, to run them into buildings.

Well, I think you're kind of right there, as I ponder on it. But doesn't that make a military tribunal even less of an option?

No, as that's what the law prescribes.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:19:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 7:05:16 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/13/2009 7:00:45 PM, Nags wrote:
They are legal combatants.

Lololol, what??? No, they are unlawful (illegal) combatants.

And since when is treating someone that killed citizens as a non-citizen a good idea? Should we deny foreign-born individuals the right to a fair trial because they weren't born in the US? Jeesh.

Uhh, the terrorists had no plans on staying in the US, at least that's what I thought the consensus was. They are not citizens, they had no plans on becoming citizens, they had no plans on respecting the rights of citizens. Simple.

Judiciary is decided based on what the crime is, and where it took place - not whether or not the person is of a certain background or legal status. Illegal immigrants are given trials just the same. Why should terrorists, even if they were not legal combatants, be treated any different?

See above.

1. Terrorists were not citizens.
2. Terrorists had no plans on becoming citizens.
3. Terrorists had clear intent to destroy the rights (lives) of citizens.

1. Illegal immigrants usually want to become citizens, as is obvious by them entering the country.
2. Illegal immigrants usually respect the rights of other citizens.
3. If illegal immigrants commit an act like murder, it is not an act of war, and is not meant to harm an entire country.

War tribunals usually prosecute actions that happen in the duration of a war, and usually in a war zone. 9/11 falls under neither of those categories.

The 9/11 attacks fall under an act of war. So yes, the terrorists can be prosecuted in military tribunals.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:19:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 7:17:51 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

Hmm... No. that would be what I'm actually worried about. And I'm not a republican. Just a New Yorker who was here when they killed three thousand people or so, and who had to worry about a family members coming home. (which he did though covered in dust, and with the most awful face on I'd ever seen)

Same here! My dad's company was also there cleaning up for months afterwards.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:22:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It makes no difference whether you try them as criminals or enemy combatants, because criminals ARE enemy combatants, the only difference is less power.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:22:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 7:19:20 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 11/13/2009 7:17:51 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

Hmm... No. that would be what I'm actually worried about. And I'm not a republican. Just a New Yorker who was here when they killed three thousand people or so, and who had to worry about a family members coming home. (which he did though covered in dust, and with the most awful face on I'd ever seen)

Same here! My dad's company was also there cleaning up for months afterwards.

Yeah, they sure knew how to make the world suck.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:23:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
What Nags said.

Volkov, your position in this was predictable (you're becoming like Ragnar now lol) but quite frankly your arguments fall short. This whole thing is just a show to apparently show how civil we are; it's just a retarded thing to do as it accomplishes nothing of substance. It might make us look good to some... the some who don't matter. To certain parts of the world (the ones we should be trying to make an impression on) we just look retarded and weak. You might disagree and that's fine. But the people in other parts of the world have an entirely different culture and mindset. You really have to take into account CULTURE as it pertains to politics and foreign policy. The most interesting and challenging class I've ever taken was called Culture and Politics which talked about this very thing.
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:30:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 7:11:40 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Volkov, in some cases, you are much too liberal. This is one of them. How is it showing "proper resolve" that we are wasting tax payer dollars to give them a trial?

You'd be wasting the same tax dollars giving them a trial in front of a military tribunal.

What can possibly be gained out of giving them a trial except for showing oh how humane we are? Give me a break. It's ridiculous.

It isn't about the humane stance of the US - they're going for the death penalty, you know. I don't consider that very humane.

There is absolutely no reason for these people to have a trial considering the things that I said: they're not citizens, they don't want to be citizens, they admit to their crimes, they're blatantly guilty, and most of all - they don't WANT a trial.

Some people renounce their rights in front of courts all the time - doesn't mean we can start disregarding them.

The result is going to be the same regardless and we all know that. If we want to be respected and revered by the countries that MATTER (the ones who actually want to attack us or would attack us), this is just retarded. Taking the moral high road in this case accomplishes nothing of substance.

It isn't about the "moral high ground." It is about due process and whether or not rights are protected in the United States.

This is such BS, it's not even funny. They have no right to receive the benefits of the US: the country they attacked. I agree that they made an attack on our nation; not individuals.

"No right to receive the benefits of the US."

Some may say the same about African Americans. Or women. Or homosexuals. Especially the latter - they commit sins.

No, not everyone must have their day in court - as I said, ESPECIALLY if they're not citizens, they don't WANT to be treated as citizens, they had the mental capacity to carry out their pre-meditated crimes and we're dealing with straight up war criminals.

Do you know who Slobodan Milosevic is? I suspect you do.

The powers that be could have automatically killed the man. Why not? He planned outright genocide. Horrible motherf*cker in every way.

But NATO didn't. Why? Because it would just be throwing out their entire base of legitimacy. Sure, people wanted him hung from a tree, due process be damned. I'm sure many NATO generals felt the same. But by giving him his day in court, they not only resolved themselves to the protection of rights that Milosevic himself denounced, they give victims a voice, and they proved themselves to be the legitimate force, the proper ideology, and the fairest of the fair. That is damn important for an empire like the United States.

Of course, Milosevic died in custody. Ironically, it was the worst thing that could happen - his death meant no one had the satisfaction of seeing him in court, facing his actions.

If we were in Afghanistan, and some guy shot at me, I'd shoot back. I wouldn't seek to capture him and give him a trial.

That is in the middle of a war zone. Quite a big difference.

Being too sissy liberal in this regard is a joke. I'm surprised that you'd be this unreasonable. As I said, I understand the whole "Oh we're so proper and civil" mentality, but in the end it's not worth it.

Not worth it to you, maybe. I am of the thought that I like my society, and I want to defend the rights that others have fought for. Even if it means extending it to those that certainly don't deserve it.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2009 7:34:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/13/2009 7:19:16 PM, Nags wrote:
Lololol, what??? No, they are unlawful (illegal) combatants.

That is up in the air.

Uhh, the terrorists had no plans on staying in the US, at least that's what I thought the consensus was. They are not citizens, they had no plans on becoming citizens, they had no plans on respecting the rights of citizens. Simple.

So, people who vacation or pass through the United States have no rights....

The 9/11 attacks fall under an act of war. So yes, the terrorists can be prosecuted in military tribunals.

I'm not so sure about that. I couldn't deny it either, though.

At 11/13/2009 7:19:13 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
No, as that's what the law prescribes.

I'm sorry for asking this, but I can't find it; do you know where this law is?