10 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoThe guy brought an incendiary device on to a plane. There have been many cases where this occurred and the person who did so has always been treated as a criminal (there are criminal laws covering such behavior). Why treat him like a soldier in a war? You're glorifying his action by doing so.
[b]why have people like USArmyParatrooper been risking their lives to defend it?
I thought people like USArmyparatrooper were risking their lives to fight terrorism, not treat terrorists like they were common criminals.
One defends principles by sticking to them
what principle are you referring to?
[/b]Denying alleged terroris ...[text shortened]... them the treatment they deserve is "giving in to them"? Your logic makes no sense whatsoever.[/b]
10 Jan 10
Originally posted by generalissimoYour retort says more about your powers of logic than it does about the argument that I laid out.
["Denying alleged terrorists a fair civilian criminal trial is tantamount to giving in to the terrorists"] is nonsense. By giving terrorists civilian trials you're completely ignoring the context of this war. So giving them the treatment they deserve is "giving in to them"? Your logic makes no sense whatsoever.
10 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by generalissimoDid you know that there are federal laws - relevant to the federal judicial system - that actually address terrorism? Why are those laws even in the books if they're not meant to address captured terrorists?
why have people like USArmyParatrooper been risking their lives to defend it?
I thought people like USArmyparatrooper were risking their lives to fight terrorism, not treat terrorists like they were common criminals.
One defends principles by sticking to them
what principle are you referring to?
Denying alleged terrorist them the treatment they deserve is "giving in to them"? Your logic makes no sense whatsoever.
Did you speak out such disagreement when the Bush administration tried and convicted the shoe bomber in civilian courts?
10 Jan 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperDid you know that there are federal laws - relevant to the federal judicial system - that actually address terrorism? Why are those laws even in the books if they're not meant to address captured terrorists?
Did you know that there are federal laws - relevant to the federal judicial system - that actually address terrorism? Why are those laws even in the books if they're not meant to address captured terrorists?
Did you speak out such disagreement when the Bush administration tried and convicted the shoe bomber in civilian courts?
http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/tribunal.html
Did you speak out such disagreement when the Bush administration tried and convicted the shoe bomber in civilian courts?
No, I did not. But personally I don't think it was the best thing to do.
10 Jan 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperVery good point.
Did you know that there are federal laws - relevant to the federal judicial system - that actually address terrorism? Why are those laws even in the books if they're not meant to address captured terrorists?
Several sections of the Federal sentencing guidelines involve penalties for terrorism and terrorism related activities. Obviously, the intent was for terrorists to be tried in the federal criminal system.
10 Jan 10
Originally posted by sh76And to those who insist he should not be tried in federal court, are these laws now obsolete? If so by what order?
http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/2m5_1.htm
http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/2m5_2.htm
http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/2m5_3.htm
http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/2m6_1.htm
and there are plenty more...
11 Jan 10
Originally posted by Hugh GlassThis is an odd thing for you to say when you know that Mr Abdulmutallab may well now reveal details of al-Qaeda networks and conspiracies that he may have learnt about in Yemen.
It's obvious he was in the act of doing something which caused the passengers to fear for their lives.... Too bad the guy didn't put a choke hold on him, and end him there.
11 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoI thought people like USArmyparatrooper were risking their lives to fight terrorism, not treat terrorists like they were common criminals.
[b]why have people like USArmyParatrooper been risking their lives to defend it?
I thought people like USArmyparatrooper were risking their lives to fight terrorism, not treat terrorists like they were common criminals.
One defends principles by sticking to them
what principle are you referring to?
Denying alleged terrorist them the treatment they deserve is "giving in to them"? Your logic makes no sense whatsoever.
[/b]the whole point is that we should treat SUSPECTS as being people who might be innocent - no matter what it is that are suspected for doing. Do you believe that the US should round up a bunch of scary-looking people and just hold them indefinitely because we THINK they MIGHT be terrorists? Or should we subject them to scrutiny to make sure we KNOW that they're terrorists?
This is precisely what USArmyParatrooper & Co are risking their lives for. A system that he and everyone else in this country are very proud of.
