Is America at war, or not?

[Ethereal]

Representing what country?

The proof that we have been counter productive for the last 8 years in dealing with the terrorists is outlined in the article just above where I referenced the Rand Report, commissioned by the Pentagon. The most thorough research conducted on terrorism to date.

If you do not know what causes terrorism you cannot hope to stop it. That is why our "war on terrorism" has been a failure for the last 8 years.

Our killing of innocent civilians is what created the terrorists in the first place.

What is your legal rationale for trying KSM in the criminal justice system as opposed to a military tribunal?

 

[Catawba]

The Nazis were lawful combatants, KSM is not; that's why the Nazis were entitled to a trial and KSM is not. I assumed that anyone with a cursory understanding of international law would be aware of this fact.

The Nazis represented Germany. What country do the terrorists represent?

I don't believe the terrorists recognize international law. The recognize thousands of innocent civilians being killed by us in countries that never attacked us.

In order to reduce their ability to recruit new terrorists, we must conduct our foreign policy and energy policy in a moral fashion. That includes how we treat foreign criminals.

Otherwise we will just continue to create more terrorists as we have done in the past.

 

[Ethereal]

Interesting opinion but it has no validity. But feel free to challenge the Dept of Justice plans if you wish. We've tried it the cowboy way for the last 8 years and been counter productive. Time to try the rule of law for a change.

You misread what I said. I was referring to methods of the last 8 years in dealing with the terrorists.

"The Rand Corporation, a conservative think-tank originally started by the U.S. Air Force, has produced a new report entitled, "How Terrorist Groups End - Lessons for Countering al Qaida." This study is important, for it reaches conclusions which may be surprising to the Bush Administration and to both presidential candidates. To wit, the study concludes that the "war on terrorism" has been a failure, and that the efforts against terrorism should not be characterized as a "war" at all."

"As the Rand Corporation predicts in such circumstances, this has only led to an increase in popular support for those resisting the U.S. military onslaught. In short, the war is counterproductive."
Dan Kovalik: Rand Corp -- War On Terrorism Is A Failure

That study has nothing to do with the legal circumstances currently under discussion; in other words, it’s a red herring.

 

[Ethereal]

The Nazis represented Germany. What country do the terrorists represent?

I don't believe the terrorists recognize international law. The recognize thousands of innocent civilians being killed by us in countries that never attacked us.

In order to reduce their ability to recruit new terrorists, we must conduct our foreign policy and energy policy in a moral fashion. That includes how we treat foreign criminals.

Otherwise we will just continue to create more terrorists as we have done in the past.

The Nazis were lawful combatants, KSM is not. That's why the Nazis were entitled to a trial and KSM is not.

Any questions?

 

[Catawba]

What is your legal rationale for trying KSM in the criminal justice system as opposed to a military tribunal?

"The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


"Free societies do not just happen. They must be deliberately created
and deliberately maintained. Freedom in America rests on a sophisticated
constitutional system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, since 9/11
freedom in America has been under assault by policymakers who repeat-
edly assert that the ‘‘line between liberty and security’’ must be redrawn.
Too many of our policymakers seem to believe that the way to deal with
terrorism is to pass more laws, spend more money, and sacrifice more
civil liberties. But genuine leadership includes ensuring accountability in
government and a willingness to reverse wrongheaded policies. Al Qaeda
terrorists do pose a security problem, but it is a problem that should be
addressed from within the American constitutional framework."
Free societies do not just happen. They must be deliberately created
and deliberately maintained. Freedom in America rests on a sophisticated
constitutional system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, since 9/11
freedom in America has been under assault by policymakers who repeat-
edly assert that the ‘‘line between liberty and security’’ must be redrawn.
Too many of our policymakers seem to believe that the way to deal with
terrorism is to pass more laws, spend more money, and sacrifice more
civil liberties. But genuine leadership includes ensuring accountability in
government and a willingness to reverse wrongheaded policies. Al Qaeda
terrorists do pose a security problem, but it is a problem that should be
addressed from within the American constitutional framework.
Free societies do not just happen. They must be deliberately created
and deliberately maintained. Freedom in America rests on a sophisticated
constitutional system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, since 9/11
freedom in America has been under assault by policymakers who repeat-
edly assert that the ‘‘line between liberty and security’’ must be redrawn.
Too many of our policymakers seem to believe that the way to deal with
terrorism is to pass more laws, spend more money, and sacrifice more
civil liberties. But genuine leadership includes ensuring accountability in
government and a willingness to reverse wrongheaded policies. Al Qaeda
terrorists do pose a security problem, but it is a problem that should be
addressed from within the American constitutional framework."

Civil Liberties and Terrorism - The Cato Institute[/URL]

 

[RightinNYC]

"The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Oh, so the Sixth Amendment applies to everyone around the world? Interesting.

 

[Catawba]

The Nazis were lawful combatants, KSM is not. That's why the Nazis were entitled to a trial and KSM is not.

Any questions?

Yes, what country do the terrorists represent?

And what court does the US fall under for targeting electrical plants and water treatment facilities in Iraq that resulted in the deaths of 100,000 innocent civilians in a country that never attacked us?

 

[Catawba]

Oh, so the Sixth Amendment applies to everyone around the world? Interesting.

Only the civilians that commit crimes in the US.

"Free societies do not just happen. They must be deliberately created
and deliberately maintained. Freedom in America rests on a sophisticated
constitutional system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, since 9/11
freedom in America has been under assault by policymakers who repeat-
edly assert that the ‘‘line between liberty and security’’ must be redrawn.
Too many of our policymakers seem to believe that the way to deal with
terrorism is to pass more laws, spend more money, and sacrifice more
civil liberties. But genuine leadership includes ensuring accountability in
government and a willingness to reverse wrongheaded policies. Al Qaeda
terrorists do pose a security problem, but it is a problem that should be
addressed from within the American constitutional framework.
Free societies do not just happen. They must be deliberately created
and deliberately maintained. Freedom in America rests on a sophisticated
constitutional system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, since 9/11
freedom in America has been under assault by policymakers who repeat-
edly assert that the ‘‘line between liberty and security’’ must be redrawn.
Too many of our policymakers seem to believe that the way to deal with
terrorism is to pass more laws, spend more money, and sacrifice more
civil liberties. But genuine leadership includes ensuring accountability in
government and a willingness to reverse wrongheaded policies. Al Qaeda
terrorists do pose a security problem, but it is a problem that should be
addressed from within the American constitutional framework."

Civil Liberties and Terrorism - The Cato Institute

 

[RightinNYC]

Only the civilians that commit crimes in the US.

Setting aside the fact that non-state actors are not automatically civilians, no, it doesn't.

 

[Catawba]

Setting aside the fact that non-state actors are not automatically civilians, no, it doesn't.

We shall see, won't we? What do you think will stop the trials?

 

[Catawba]

That study has nothing to do with the legal circumstances currently under discussion; in other words, it’s a red herring.

A red herring to those that supported a failed "war on terror" maybe. To those interested in actually defeating terrorism, it is imperative.

 

[RightinNYC]

We shall see, won't we? What do you think will stop the trials?

Wtf are you talking about?

The sixth amendment does not apply to enemy combatants. This is not an opinion, but a well established legal fact. The fact that we have decided to prosecute individuals in the Article III courts does not change that.

 

[katiegrrl0]

I think the more obvious conclusion is that twenty years ago, some of the fughters were useful allies against a particular common foe, while today, others among those fighters have become our enemy.

I don't think any of this requires "fraud" or "short-sightedness."







See, here's the problem - you keep conflating things that are not the same. How exactly does the fact that poor people commit more crimes bear on the likelihood and fairness of plea bargaining?

how is the US court just when people that are seen as criminals can make deals for lesser sentences? how is it justice when the rich have better access to attorney's? how is it justice when there are situations when there is no trial before a jury?

when a person is arrested for a crime the state should present it's case. if it is found that they state has the proper evidence than the person is put on trial before a jury. the jury decides guilt or innocence. if found guilty the person goes to jail. if innocent the person walks. this is what a just court does.

what i see in the US courts is this. a person is arrested for whatever. he hires or is assigned an attorney. that attorney takes to the ADA or DA or whomever. they make some arrangement. this is set before a judge and the judge says okay or not okay. in that case the dealing would still continue until the sides reach agreement. tell me that this is not let's make a deal. it has little to do with justice or the way the courts should run.

it does favor those with wealth. they can afford better attorney's that can make better deals. they can afford to get off.

you must admit that there is a lot of high dollar crime. it is not done by the poor people. the rich get better sentences. they don't do the real hard time. it is like when Martha Stewart went to jail. tell me she was treated like anyone else. this is not justice.

i know everyone was watching the OJ case. look at the attorney's he could afford to hire. look at the cases involving the wealthy and see how many of them had Public Defenders.

the US courts in my view make a mockery of justice. it has become a commodity for sale or trade.

the police work hard and the courts make it easy for a person to get a lighter sentence. maybe if the perpetrators of said crime knew that there were no deals coming their way and they would get stiff sentences and do the time it might cut into crime.

when a person committing a crime knows that he or she can deal their way out of it why not take the chance. courts are a joke. they do not serve the community. they play let's make a deal so the job is easier. they also don't have to take the chance that a jury would see through a bad case and let someone walk.

it would force the police and the attorney's to have to make a proper case to get a conviction.

if a man commits a crime for which a real sentence would be say twenty years and he can do a deal and get that reduced to two and five years probation and never have to stand trial he may well take the deal. the jury may send him away for the full twenty.

so you now have a criminal out in two back on the streets doing whatever. that is not justice it is laziness in the courts. why make a case when we can make deals.

tell me again you think this is justice and right. you have to know that it is wrong.

 

[katiegrrl0]

Oh, so the Sixth Amendment applies to everyone around the world? Interesting.

if the person is to be tried in the US court system has to follow the rules. the US is not at war. just because Bush named it a war on terror does not make it a war. when the Pats played the Colts a sportscaster called it a war. that did not make that a war either.

the alleged terrorists are criminals. the US must present a case in court to prove that they are the ones that committed this crime. if they are in fact guilty then they should be sentenced.

if the US denied them due process any citizen of any country could be sentenced in the US without trial. only the fact that someone said they are guilty would be enough to convict.

 

[RightinNYC]

how is the US court just when people that are seen as criminals can make deals for lesser sentences?

Explain exactly why it's unjust.

You do know that other countries do the same thing, right?

how is it justice when the rich have better access to attorney's?

Justice requires that every single person have access to the same attorney? Does that apply to doctors/teachers/cab drivers/friends as well?

how is it justice when there are situations when there is no trial before a jury?

Holy ****, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Every country on the planet has tons of cases where a person is sent to jail without ever seeing a jury. It's called "pleading guilty."

when a person is arrested for a crime the state should present it's case. if it is found that they state has the proper evidence than the person is put on trial before a jury. the jury decides guilt or innocence. if found guilty the person goes to jail. if innocent the person walks. this is what a just court does.

No, it's not.

what i see in the US courts is this. a person is arrested for whatever. he hires or is assigned an attorney. that attorney takes to the ADA or DA or whomever. they make some arrangement. this is set before a judge and the judge says okay or not okay. in that case the dealing would still continue until the sides reach agreement. tell me that this is not let's make a deal. it has little to do with justice or the way the courts should run.

It's a bit more complicated than that, but yes, people are often free to agree to lesser charges. However, if any of the three parties doesn't want to do that, we have a trial.

it does favor those with wealth. they can afford better attorney's that can make better deals. they can afford to get off.

Just like every single market mechanism on the planet.

Look, I get it. You would like to live in a fairy dream world where everyone is perfect and there is no money and every person has the exact same resources as everyone else. Unfortunately, we don't. Rich people can afford nicer **** than poor people. OUTRAGE!!!!1111. If you don't think this happens in whatever country you've immigrated to, you need to open your eyes.

you must admit that there is a lot of high dollar crime.

Not as much as there is low dollar or violent crime.

it is not done by the poor people. the rich get better sentences. they don't do the real hard time. it is like when Martha Stewart went to jail. tell me she was treated like anyone else. this is not justice.

i know everyone was watching the OJ case. look at the attorney's he could afford to hire. look at the cases involving the wealthy and see how many of them had Public Defenders.

the US courts in my view make a mockery of justice. it has become a commodity for sale or trade.

See above.

the police work hard and the courts make it easy for a person to get a lighter sentence. maybe if the perpetrators of said crime knew that there were no deals coming their way and they would get stiff sentences and do the time it might cut into crime.

Got anything to support that hypothesis?

when a person committing a crime knows that he or she can deal their way out of it why not take the chance.

Just abysmal logic.

courts are a joke. they do not serve the community. they play let's make a deal so the job is easier. they also don't have to take the chance that a jury would see through a bad case and let someone walk.

it would force the police and the attorney's to have to make a proper case to get a conviction.

See above.

if a man commits a crime for which a real sentence would be say twenty years and he can do a deal and get that reduced to two and five years probation and never have to stand trial he may well take the deal.

And that doesn't really happen.

so you now have a criminal out in two back on the streets doing whatever. that is not justice it is laziness in the courts. why make a case when we can make deals.

Yea, that's it - it's laziness. No possible other reasons.

tell me again you think this is justice and right. you have to know that it is wrong.

What's wrong is that I've spent 25 posts arguing with someone who doesn't have the slightest clue what she's talking about when I should have been doing my reading for Fed Crim.

 

[katiegrrl0]

Explain exactly why it's unjust.

You do know that other countries do the same thing, right?



Justice requires that every single person have access to the same attorney? Does that apply to doctors/teachers/cab drivers/friends as well?



Holy ****, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Every country on the planet has tons of cases where a person is sent to jail without ever seeing a jury. It's called "pleading guilty."



No, it's not.



It's a bit more complicated than that, but yes, people are often free to agree to lesser charges. However, if any of the three parties doesn't want to do that, we have a trial.



Just like every single market mechanism on the planet.

Look, I get it. You would like to live in a fairy dream world where everyone is perfect and there is no money and every person has the exact same resources as everyone else. Unfortunately, we don't. Rich people can afford nicer **** than poor people. OUTRAGE!!!!1111. If you don't think this happens in whatever country you've immigrated to, you need to open your eyes.



Not as much as there is low dollar or violent crime.



See above.



Got anything to support that hypothesis?



Just abysmal logic.



See above.



And that doesn't really happen.



Yea, that's it - it's laziness. No possible other reasons.



What's wrong is that I've spent 25 posts arguing with someone who doesn't have the slightest clue what she's talking about when I should have been doing my reading for Fed Crim.

and in the end you show yourself for what you are. incapable of making your point.

you use in here the idea of pleading guilty. well that does happen and if a person does this than of course there would be no trial. how stupid was that posted reply.

you think the US is the cotton candy dreamland and will defend it to your last breath no matter what is wrong. that is why you are a conservative. it is far easier for you to be a lemming than to possibly think for yourself. i can insult you as have have me.

that is a new handle for you lemming, follow the leader to lazy to create a thought for yourself. maybe you should hit the law books and actually read how law should be done.

 

[Catawba]

Wtf are you talking about?

I am saying the Justice Department is pursuing this trial under the rule of law. What do you think will stop them from proceeding?

The sixth amendment does not apply to enemy combatants. This is not an opinion, but a well established legal fact. The fact that we have decided to prosecute individuals in the Article III courts does not change that.

"WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that it is abandoning one of President George W. Bush's key phrases in the war on terrorism: enemy combatant. But that won't change much for the detainees at the U.S. naval base in Cuba _ Obama still asserts the military's authority to hold them. Human rights attorneys said they were disappointed that Obama didn't take a new stance."
Justice Department Ends "Enemy Combatant" Definition For Gitmo Detainees

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

first your fantastic military has to find him. they can't stop terror in their midst. how do you expect them to find a guy who is hiding? How long have they been looking?

maybe you should take what you can get because Bin Laden hides to well. the entire military might of the US can't find one guy, hehehehehe
Maybe if the idiot you had as president that started your mess (Bush) had not taken his eye off the ball and left Iraq alone you may have found Bin Laden.

Hi girlfriend,

You're clearly not American. Are you Canadian? My mom was Canadian. Or are you Euro Peon? Please let me know. It will make it easier coming to grips with you. Thanks.

 

[katiegrrl0]

Hi girlfriend,

You're clearly not American. Are you Canadian? My mom was Canadian. Or are you Euro Peon? Please let me know. It will make it easier coming to grips with you. Thanks.

i was a US citizen for the bigger percentage of my life. so i clearly was an American. i have lived all over the world so it gives me a different perspective than many Americans that have never traveled or just vacation in other nations. i am not Canadian. i live as a French citizen now. i do not live in France though.

 

[Ethereal]

"The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, you would be totally against trying someone like KSM in a military tribunal? The criminal justice system is the only acceptable venue?

 

[Ethereal]

Yes, what country do the terrorists represent?

They don't represent a country. What's your point?

And what court does the US fall under for targeting electrical plants and water treatment facilities in Iraq that resulted in the deaths of 100,000 innocent civilians in a country that never attacked us?

I never supported the invasion, so I don't know why you're asking me this question.

 

[Ethereal]

A red herring to those that supported a failed "war on terror" maybe. To those interested in actually defeating terrorism, it is imperative.

We're talking about trying KSM in the criminal justice system as opposed to a military tribunal. That's what we're discussing. The study you presented has no relevance to the topic under discussion, hence it is a red herring.

If you cannot stay on topic I'll just have to assume that you're an immature troll.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

i was a US citizen for the bigger percentage of my life. so i clearly was an American. i have lived all over the world so it gives me a different perspective than many Americans that have never traveled or just vacation in other nations. i am not Canadian. i live as a French citizen now. i do not live in France though.

Thanks. I'm an American. However, most posters on DP think I live in a parallel universe. They're right. I like talking and debating with people with a different world view. I learn from them. It makes me stronger.

 

[Ethereal]

and in the end you show yourself for what you are. incapable of making your point.

you use in here the idea of pleading guilty. well that does happen and if a person does this than of course there would be no trial. how stupid was that posted reply.

you think the US is the cotton candy dreamland and will defend it to your last breath no matter what is wrong. that is why you are a conservative. it is far easier for you to be a lemming than to possibly think for yourself. i can insult you as have have me.

that is a new handle for you lemming, follow the leader to lazy to create a thought for yourself. maybe you should hit the law books and actually read how law should be done.

FYI: Emotion is not the same thing as logic.

 

[katiegrrl0]

Thanks. I'm an American. However, most posters on DP think I live in a parallel universe. They're right. I like talking and debating with people with a different world view. I learn from them. It makes me stronger.

this is true. when a person is limited to a small world view they have a difficult time understanding viewpoints about the big world view. having lived in many parts of the world i see how different systems work. none is perfect. all have their flaws.

i live where i do now because i like it here. this country has had many flaws and still is very far from perfect. yet, it gives me a sense of people trying to make things better. i having lived in the US see that so many think that the place is perfect the way it is and do not want to hear that it is flawed in any way. i grow tired of what i perceive to be arrogant attitude. that because it is America it deserves special favor. it does not.

there are serious wrongs there and they should be addressed without small world blinders.