• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is America at war, or not?

Hi Katiegrrl0,

Are you familiar with the French criminal justice system? Isn't it a fact that in the French criminal justice system a defendant does not enjoy a presumption of innocence? This is one way in which your criminal justice system is inferior to the American criminal justice system. N'est-ce pas?
 
Hi Katiegrrl0,

Are you familiar with the French criminal justice system? Isn't it a fact that in the French criminal justice system a defendant does not enjoy a presumption of innocence? This is one way in which your criminal justice system is inferior to the American criminal justice system. N'est-ce pas?

Article 9 The Declaration of Human Rights (1789)


- As every man is presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty, if it should be considered necessary to arrest him, any undue harshness that is not required to secure his person must be severely curbed by Law.

The Declaration of the Human Rights - Présidence de la République



Article 9.

- Tout homme étant présumé innocent jusqu'à ce qu'il ait été déclaré coupable, s'il doit être considéré comme nécessaire pour l'arrêter, toute rigueur excessive qui n'est pas nécessaire pour s'assurer de sa personne doit être sévèrement réprimée par la loi.

this is what the French say.
 
Article 9 The Declaration of Human Rights (1789)


- As every man is presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty, if it should be considered necessary to arrest him, any undue harshness that is not required to secure his person must be severely curbed by Law.

The Declaration of the Human Rights - Présidence de la République



Article 9.

- Tout homme étant présumé innocent jusqu'à ce qu'il ait été déclaré coupable, s'il doit être considéré comme nécessaire pour l'arrêter, toute rigueur excessive qui n'est pas nécessaire pour s'assurer de sa personne doit être sévèrement réprimée par la loi.

this is what the French say.

OMG! I stand corrected. How dare you point out my error? :lol:
 
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.

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

Our counter productive course we have taken over the last 8 years, with Bush's designation of enemy combatant rather than criminal, and our 8 years of war against countries that never attacked us.

You are aware that all but two of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis are you not? Holding criminals without a trial is counter productive to reducing the recruitment efforts of the terrorists.



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

Well if we ever hope to defeat terrorism, we have to stop being counter productive and address the root causes of it.
 
Last edited:
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.

You don't have a clue that the reason for closing Gitmo and trying the criminals in our court system is one way to decrease the recruitment efforts by the terrorists do you?
 
Our counter productive course we have taken over the last 8 years, with Bush's designation of enemy combatant rather than criminal, and our 8 years of war against countries that never attacked us.

And this has what to do with your previous question!?

You asked me, "What country do the terrorists represent?"

How is the answer to that question relevant to our discussion concerning KSM?

You are aware that all but two of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis are you not?

Yes. I am fully aware of this. Again, what is your point?

Holding criminals without a trial is counter productive to reducing the recruitment efforts of the terrorists.

1. KSM is not a "criminal". He is a unlawful enemy combatant.

2. A military tribunal is a trial.

Well if we ever hope to defeat terrorism, we have to stop being counter productive and address the root causes of it.

The root causes of terrorism are ignorance and poverty. This, however, has nothing to do with our current discussion. We are discussing the legal status of Khalid Sheik Mohammad.

P.S. - Use the quote feature!!!
 
You don't have a clue that the reason for closing Gitmo and trying the criminals in our court system is one way to decrease the recruitment efforts by the terrorists do you?

So, people become terrorists because America doesn't try unlawful enemy combatants in the criminal justice system?

:rofl

Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds?
 
1. KSM is not a "criminal". He is a unlawful enemy combatant.

Because Bush designated him as such.

2. A military tribunal is a trial.

"On November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a "Military Order" providing for potentially indefinite detention of any non-citizen accused of terrorism, and permitting trial of such defendants in a military commission with a provision purporting to preclude all judicial review. Such military commissions would not follow the same process as courts-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and would afford few, if any, of the protections available in the ordinary military justice system."
Memorandum to Congress on President Bush's Order Establishing Military Tribunals | American Civil Liberties Union

The root causes of terrorism are ignorance and poverty.

So killing innocent civilians does not piss off Arabs like it does in the US?
Exactly the thinking responsible for our war on terror being a failure.

And I would hardly call the Saudis poor!
 
Last edited:
If there is not enough proof to convince the FBI, I have no reason to believe that he was connected in anyway directly. What proof do you have that escaped the FBI?

Oh god a freaking twoofer. Sorry sport the reason OBL has not been indicted for 9-11 is because it would be superfluous as he is already wanted on a superseding indictment. Furthermore; he has been indicted by Spain specifically for 9-11.
 
The FBI has charges against Bin Laden for several crimes but 9/11 is not one of them.

There are only 2 indictments against Bin Laden from the U.S., neither of which have been issued since 1998 though attacks have occurred since 1998. Do you know what the word superfluous means?

Oh and the evidence you are looking for can be found from Bin Laden's own ****ing lips in two separate videos in which he admits to perpetrating the attacks.
 
What is says, that the 9/11 attack is not one of the things Bin Laden is wanted for by the FBI, which was my claim.

There are only two indictments against Bin Laden, both of which were issued in 1998 neither of which were for specific attacks, the first indictment issued by a grand jury on June 8, 1998 charged OBL with "conspiracy to attack defense utilities of the United States", and the second was issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 4, 1998 on charged him with the "Murder of US Nationals Outside the United States, Conspiracy to Murder US Nationals Outside the United States, and Attacks on a Federal Facility Resulting in Death," tell me why would a 3 indictment be necessary?

It wouldn't it would be superfluous.

And once again Bin Laden has been indicted in Spain by Investigative magistrate Baltasar Garzon specifically for the 9-11 attacks.
 
Oh god a freaking twoofer. Sorry sport the reason OBL has not been indicted for 9-11 is because it would be superfluous as he is already wanted on a superseding indictment. Furthermore; he has been indicted by Spain specifically for 9-11.

Thank you for confirming there is no US indictment for OBL in regards to 9/11.

Can you provide a link for the indictment for OBL in Spain? How many troops does spain have looking for him btw?
 
Both of which perpetrated numerous acts of war against the U.S. prior to their liberation.

This is right about the time where Katiegirl will begin to tell you that you know nothing about what you are talking about. She will then spew an emotional rant that you don't know the ways of the world and that any credentials you have she doesn't believe in because your opinions and beliefs don't coincide with hers.

Oh, she will also refuse to point out any factual errors while stating you don't know what you are talking about. It is like a badger getting cornered. Only it's not a predator doing the cornering, it's logic

Just a heads up.
 
Hi Katiegrrl0,

Are you familiar with the French criminal justice system? Isn't it a fact that in the French criminal justice system a defendant does not enjoy a presumption of innocence? This is one way in which your criminal justice system is inferior to the American criminal justice system. N'est-ce pas?

How dare you point out some problems with the French criminal justice system! Everyone knows it doesn't even come close to the US in terms of violating civil liberties in the name of terror.

(I'll just leave this here: Detention of Terrorism Suspects in Britain and France - Brookings Institution )

France


Detention is an important part of this pre-emptive system. It’s important to note that the French system of justice is based on an inquisitorial approach in which an investigating magistrate (an inexact translation of juge d’instruction) conducts a judicial investigation of serious criminal offenses. The investigating magistrate, somewhat of a cross between a prosecutor and a judge, has no precise analogue in the Anglo-Saxon system of justice. He is not an advocate for the prosecution or the defense, but rather he is charged with conducting an impartial investigation to determine whether a crime worthy of a prosecution has been committed. Because these magistrates are in theory impartial arbiters, they are granted fairly wide powers to open judicial inquiries, authorize search warrants and wiretaps, and issue subpoenas: powers that in the U.S. would require authorization from a judge. There are seven investigating magistrates in France that handle all of the terrorism cases in the country. In practice, the terrorism magistrates are not impartial investigators, they act like prosecutors but have the powers of a judge—a fact often noted by human rights advocates.

The investigating magistrate can make use of two types of detention, both highly regulated within the judicial system: pre-charge detention (garde à vue) and pre-trial detention (détention provisoire). In normal cases, pre-charge detention is allowed for 24 hours, extendible once. But if the case involves terrorism or a few other serious crimes, the investigating magistrates can authorize pre-charge detention for four days and, under some circumstances, six days. Suspects are not entitled to see their lawyer until after 72 hours, and even then the lawyer is usually only allowed 30 minutes with the suspect. The suspect can usually notify his representatives of his arrest, but that privilege can be denied by the prosecutor if he believes it might prejudice investigations and it often is in terrorism cases. He is also not notified of his right to silence and can be interrogated without his lawyer present. As noted, the limitation of these rights is justified by the supposed impartiality of the investigating magistrate who is not considered an advocate for the prosecution.

If the investigating magistrate recommends that the suspect be charged, he may also recommend pre-trial detention. Such detention is by law recommended only if it is necessary to preserve material evidence, prevent witness pressure, prevent flight, or to protect the accused, but it is quite common in terrorism cases. Pre-trial detention can last for up to four years in terrorism cases with the investigating magistrate effectively determining the pace of the investigation and therefore the trial. Alternatively, the investigating magistrates can also decide on house arrest and other limitations, such as bail or the surrender of a passport. There were some well-publicized abuses of pre-trial detention in terrorism cases during the 1990s, so since 2001, all pre-trial detentions must be approved by a new type of independent magistrate, the Liberty and Detention Judge (juge des libertés et de la detention). That judge must also hold a hearing every four or six months (depending on the charge) to re-authorize pre-trial detention in which he insures that that the investigation and trial are progressing at a reasonable pace.

There have been many allegations of torture taking place during detentions, particularly of the use of extended questioning periods and sleep deprivation, but no accusation of systematic abuse. In response, France created in 2007 an independent authority for the monitoring of all places of detention, the Inspector General of Places of Deprivation of Liberty (Controleur Général des lieux de privation de liberté), but it is not yet operational. There are also controls in place to ensure that the suspects are seen by doctors at various points in the process.

French counterterrorism officials view both types of detentions as critical to their success. The ability to hold essentially anybody for four days and to hold charged suspects for four years gives them ample opportunity to assemble a case. The investigating magistrates have occasionally chafed at the short pre-charge detention period, gaining an increase to six days under exceptional circumstances in 2006. But they consider the ability to question suspects for three days without a lawyer as critical and usually sufficient to obtain information about terrorist networks. In the 1990s, there were many instances of mass arrest (50-100 people) for preventative and intelligence purposes, including before the 1998 World Cup in Paris in which people would be arrested in what were essentially sweeps. That technique is no longer used, but the pre-charge detention period is still clearly used as an investigative technique in a more individualized fashion. The investigating magistrates also see the pre-trial detention as allowing them the time to assemble evidence from multiple sources, and to find alternatives sources for intelligence information that can’t be used in trial.

This system of detention has been roundly criticized by human rights organizations within and beyond France, including in a highly critical report by Human Rights Watch released this month. The role of the investigating magistrates is broadly condemned as too powerful and lacking in procedural checks, even after the reforms to create a Liberty and Detention Judge. Certainly, by American standards, the French counterterrorism apparatus is extraordinarily repressive and intrusive and this repression falls particularly on specific groups, primarily Muslims and Corsicans. During the wave of terrorist attacks in 1995, French authorities detained some 70,000 people for questioning; the vast majority of them were North African.
 
And what's wrong with a military trial for war criminals?

For starters, they are not war criminals, since we have never officially declared war.

See here for other reasons.
 
For starters, they are not war criminals, since we have never officially declared war.

The AUMFs combined with long-standing precedent qualifies these conflicts as "wars" under the Constitution.

Dellums v. Bush (DC Cir) said:
This claim on behalf of the Executive n10 is far too sweeping to be accepted by the courts. n11 If the Executive had the sole power to determine that any particular offensive military operation, no matter how vast, does not constitute war-making but only an offensive military attack, the congressional power to declare war will be at the mercy of a semantic decision by the Executive. Such an "interpretation" would evade the plain language of the Constitution, and it cannot stand.

That is not to say that, assuming that the issue is factually close or ambiguous or fraught with intricate technical military and diplomatic baggage, the courts would not defer to the political branches to determine whether or not particular hostilities might qualify as a "war." However, here the forces involved are of such magnitude and significance as to present no serious claim that a war would not ensue if they became engaged in combat, and it is therefore clear that congressional approval is required if Congress desires to become involved.

Mitchell v. Laird, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 344, 488 F.2d 611, 614 (D.C. Cir. 1973), is instructive in that regard. In Mitchell, the Court of Appeals for this Circuit ruled there is "no insuperable difficulty in a court determining" the truth of the factual allegations [**9] in the complaint: that many Americans had been killed and large amounts of money had been spent in military activity in Indo-China. In the view of the appellate court, by looking at those facts a court could determine "whether the hostilities in Indo-China constitute[d] . . . a 'war,' . . . within . . . the meaning of that term in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11." 488 F.2d at 614. Said the Court:

Here the critical question to be initially decided is whether the hostilities in Indo-China constitute in the Constitutional sense a "war". . . [If the plaintiffs' allegations are true,] then in our opinion, as apparently in the opinion of President Nixon, . . . there has been a war in Indo-China. Nor do we see any difficulty in a court facing up to the question as to whether because of the war's duration [*1146] and magnitude the President is or was without power to continue the war without Congressional approval.

488 F.2d at 614. In short, Mitchell stands for the proposition that courts do not lack the power and the ability to make the factual and legal determination of whether this nation's military actions constitute war for purposes of the constitutional War Clause. n12 See also, [**10] Orlando v. Laird, 443 F.2d 1039 (2d Cir. 1971); Berk v. Laird, 429 F.2d 302 (2d Cir. 1970).
The Department's argument also ignores the fact that courts have historically made determinations about whether this country was at war for many other purposes -- the construction of treaties, statutes, and even insurance contracts. n13 These judicial determinations of a de facto state of war have occurred even in the absence of a congressional declaration. n14

Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that 230,000 American troops are currently deployed in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf area, and that by the end of this month the number of American troops in the region will reach 380,000. They also allege, in light of the President's obtaining the support of the United Nations Security Council in a resolution allowing for the use of force against Iraq, that he is planning for an offensive military attack on Iraqi forces.

Given these factual allegations and the legal principles [**13] outlined above, the Court has no hesitation in concluding that an offensive entry into Iraq by several hundred thousand United States servicemen under the conditions described above could be described as a "war" within the meaning of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, of the Constitution.

RONALD V
 
There are only 2 indictments against Bin Laden from the U.S., neither of which have been issued since 1998 though attacks have occurred since 1998. Do you know what the word superfluous means?

Yes, I know what superfluous means. I never knew it to be applied to criminal charges before. Every other criminal I have seen did not have any superfluous charges. Every single charge was brought against them. So if I commit a dozen murders, I would only be charged with one, because the other 11 were superfluous?


Oh and the evidence you are looking for can be found from Bin Laden's own ****ing lips in two separate videos in which he admits to perpetrating the attacks.

You don't have to convince me. Convince the FBI!
 
yes maybe than you would get to the truth that FDR knew about the attack and allowed it.

lol yep I guess the ten official U.S. inquiries which cited incompetence, underestimation and misapprehension of Japanese capabilities and intentions, problems resulting from excessive secrecy about cryptography, and lack of adequate manpower for intelligence (analysis, collection, and processing) were all in on the conspiracy, right up until 1995. :roll:

you are not at war. Bin Laden is not in the military. they were civilians

No they were unlawful combatants committing a war crime. A civilian is a non-com and doesn't engage in hostilities.

on the planes that supposedly wreaked your buildings.

Lemme guess you're a ****ing twoofer as well as a Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists? Bust out the aluminum foil lady you're going to ****ing need it.

Bin Laden is officially a civilian.

No he is officially a unlawful enemy combatant.

this is why so called terrorists all over the world have trials. look at the trials in all the different countries for so called terrorists. what makes you think the US should be held to a different standard? just how high does American arrogance rise.

Not true for example during the IRA border campaign in 1961 military courts were established by Charles Haughey. The U.S. has tried terrorists within our civilian court system as well even after 9-11 but I see absolutely no reason to try non-citizen unlawful enemy combatants in a civilian court, this is a war whether you want to recognize it or not.

More over the Geneva Conventions do not in any way prevent unlawful enemy combatants from being tried by military court.
 
Civilians carried out the attacks.

No unlawful enemy combatants and war criminals perpetrated the attacks.

Otherwise we would have been bombing Saudi Arabia rather than Afghanistan and

Refresh my memory but I don't recall AQ being a member of the Saudi government, but they were a part of the Taliban government.


Iraq (which had no people among the attackers btw).

Iraq had perpetrated numerous acts of war against the U.S. and Saddam was conspiring with Islamist extremists (including AQ affiliates) to attack the U.S. right up to the fall of Baghdad.
 
Back
Top Bottom