• 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!

American hikers get sentenced to 8 years.

VanceMack said:
I dont often go to the 'irony' card, but you...calling ANYONE stupid...especially in light of your comment in this thread...OMG...

And...you want to talk 'strawmen'? With YOUR arguments? Thats like a triple hit point stupid on your behalf.
Click to expand...

It's not a straw man. People on this board DID show that they had no problem with Texas denying a foreign national certain rights. Do you know what a straw man is?
 
Hatuey said:
Jetboogieman, I've noticed. You're not debater who really likes being called out on his inability to make a strong argument. Do you believe you have a right to demand other countries give a fair trial if you don't afford it to others?
Click to expand...

Well I'm glad you feel the need to rate my debating strength against yours instead of defending your quite frankly uncomparible, comparison.
 
Hatuey said:
Jetboogieman, I've noticed. You're not debater who really likes being called out on his inability to make a strong argument. Do you believe you have a right to demand other countries give a fair trial if you don't afford it to others?
Click to expand...
Lets see...rapist murderer recieves fair trial...only beef anyone has is not with the sentence...hell...they WANT a life sentence. Why? They know his ass is guilty. They rail not against the fairness of the trial but against the death penalty and a possible technicality to have it thrown out (you know...that death penalty that says although the guy came here as a THREE year old and lived virtually his entire life here, they should have notified the embassy that a person born in mejico raped children and then bashed their heads in with a rock-hey...dood...nice example you hitch your wagon to BTW). Without the death penalty people like you wouldnt even know his name...let alone give a **** about him. Vs...the situation in Iran.

You know...having even the slightest amount of dignity and grace means that every once in a while you can allow yourself to recognize...hmmm...yep...that was a stupid argument...OK...my bad. But....NAH...you keep on clinging to your 'point'.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Putting aside the American bashing.
Click to expand...

What American bashing? Are you even an American?

Strawman is one person getting their "right" to consult their national government didn't change the fact he was guilty anyway.
Click to expand...

What does it matter then? These people were found to be guilty anyway. So what would legal US council change?
.. And rightfully executed, doesn't compare to on obviously political imprisonment by the Iranian government.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is nice to know.

There is not a shred of evidence these people were spies.
Click to expand...

Iran seems to think differently. :shrug:

Glad to see you have your priorities straight.
Click to expand...

Glad to see you're unable to define what a straw man is or even realize the gap of inconsistency in your arguments.
 
VanceMack said:
Lets see...rapist murderer recieves fair trial
Click to expand...

If he was denied legal council from his country, then that's hardly a fair trial. The rest of your argument is nothing but a boring diatribe.
 
Hatuey said:
It's not a straw man. People on this board DID show that they had no problem with Texas denying a foreign national certain rights. Do you know what a straw man is?
Click to expand...
Sure...= your argument. Texas gave that citizen EVERY right any other American would get. They gave them FAR more rights than any mejican would get. He was arrested, tried and convicted because he raped and murdered teenagers. You and people like you cling to this idea that his rights were violated because he came to America 30 years earlier as a three year old and the embassy wasnt notified...even though he had lived in the country since he could walk. And THAT equates to hikers in Iran. You using some convuluted moronic argument to compare the two cases = straw man.
 
Hatuey said:
If he was denied legal council from his country, then that's hardly a fair trial. The rest of your argument is nothing but a boring diatribe.
Click to expand...
He received legal counsel. The state and US supreme courts disagree with you that his rights were violated. Probably because they figure since he came here at THREE years old and lived in this country as a US citizen for decades and his birthplace wasnt even an ISSUE until he was going to be executed and since he recieved a fair trial and legal counsel his arguments, like yours, are merely self serving bull****.
 
VanceMack said:
Sure...= your argument. Texas gave that citizen EVERY right any other American would get.
Click to expand...

And Iran gave those people every other right an Iranian would get within the Iranian legal framework. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?

They gave them FAR more rights than any mejican would get.
Click to expand...

In Mexico? Different legal framework. So that's questionable.

He was arrested, tried and convicted because he raped and murdered teenagers.
Click to expand...

And these people were arrested, tried and convicted because they were spying.

You and people like you cling to this idea that his rights were violated because he came to America 30 years earlier as a three year old and the embassy wasnt notified...
Click to expand...

When he came, how he got here, who he lived with and the last person he did the dirty with are irrelevant. He was a Mexican national.

even though he had lived in the country since he could walk. And THAT equates to hikers in Iran.
Click to expand...

Here I'll make it simple for you again:

Being in the country for X period of time, does not allow a country to deny foreign nationals legal council from their governments. In both these cases people were denied legal council from their governments. As Texas did not allow a foreign national to have the council of his government, then the US can't demand that other countries follow international law when the same situation arises with American nationals abroad. In essence, the US has shot itself its own moral foot.

You using some convuluted moronic argument to compare the two cases = straw man.
Click to expand...

Do you know what a straw man is?
 
VanceMack said:
He received legal counsel.
Click to expand...

Do you know how to read? Or do you just make things up as you go? Here: He was given Texas' legal council and DENIED his embassy's council which he had a right to.

The state and US supreme courts disagree with you that his rights were violated.
Click to expand...

The case never went to the Supreme Court. So the only people who agreed was the state of Texas. Not much of a surprise.

Probably because they figure since he came here at THREE years old and lived in this country as a US citizen for decades and his birthplace wasnt even an ISSUE until he was going to be executed and since he recieved a fair trial and legal counsel his arguments, like yours, are merely self serving bull****.
Click to expand...

When you start arguments from ignorance, you end up with silly statements like the above.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Do you know how to read? Or do you just make things up as you go? Here: He was given Texas' legal council and DENIED his embassy's council which he had a right to.
The case never went to the Supreme Court.
When you start arguments from ignorance, you end up with silly statements like the above.
Click to expand...
Quick...no Google. What was his name? What were the circumstances of the case? Before it became about the death sentence did you even know about it? Pathetic. Oh yes...its the VERY same thing asd the Iranian case. Except of course...were the Iranian hikers denied access to the US embassy? Adequate legal counsel? Your arguments are pathetic. I dont expect MUCH from you...but...this?
 
VanceMack said:
Quick...no Google. What was his name?
Click to expand...

Humberto Garcia.

What were the circumstances of the case?
Click to expand...

Accused of killing a few kids.

Before it became about the death sentence did you even know about it?
Click to expand...

Before 9/11 happen, did you know about it? Stupid question.

Pathetic. Oh yes...its the VERY same thing asd the Iranian case.
Click to expand...

The underlying legal and logical consequences? Yes. They're identical.

Except of course...were the Iranian hikers denied access to the US embassy?
Click to expand...

As there is no US embassy in Iran? Yes.

Adequate legal counsel?
Click to expand...

That's the argument you've made. If they were given adequate legal counsel within the Iranian legal framework, what are you crying about?

Your arguments are pathetic. I dont expect MUCH from you...but...this?
Click to expand...

Yawn.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Humberto Garcia.
Accused of killing a few kids.
Before 9/11 happen, did you know about it? Stupid question.
The underlying legal and logical consequences? Yes. They're identical.
As there is no US embassy in Iran? Yes.
That's the argument you've made. If they weren't given adequate legal counsel, what are you crying about?
Yawn.
Click to expand...
Lived in the US as a citizen as a TWO year old. Arrested, tried, and convicted like thousands of average American citizens that commit crimes. Spoke English. Understood the law. Understood brutally raping a child and then bashing her skull in with a rock was a crime. Recieved legal counsel. Recieved a fair trial. Legal loophole seized on by anti-deathpenalty types who dont give a **** about the individual or his crimes. Those same individuals were pushing not for an overturning of the conviction but of a commuting of the sentence. Thems the facts and that case has no bearing on the case in Iran. US diplomats have in fact met with the hikers. OH...and as for the embassy being notified...we...the US government, the hikers...the public...we all KNOW and knew before the trial didnt we? And if there be no actual embassy in Iran...again...your argument fails at every level. So...the relative bearing from one case to the other is...nothing. You know it...you just pretend your strawman is at least a tin man.
 
VanceMack said:
Lived in the US as a citizen as a TWO year old.
Click to expand...

Yes, and had we found him before he killed people, he would have been deported and the time he spent in the US wouldn't have mattered, he'd be a Mexican national in need of deportation.

Arrested, tried, and convicted like thousands of average American citizens that commit crimes.
Click to expand...

Those American citizens didn't have the right to legal council from Mexico. This guy did. Do you not understand that yet? You like repeating yourself a lot.

Spoke English.
Click to expand...

My wife speaks Dutch. It doesn't mean Sint Maarten can deny her legal council from the US if she ever broke a law there.

Understood the law.
Click to expand...

As do most people who break it or follow it.

Understood brutally raping a child and then bashing her skull in with a rock was a crime. Recieved legal counsel.
Click to expand...

As these people did.

Recieved a fair trial.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to show that the Americans in Iran didn't? If they were denied legal counsel from their governments, then obviously they did not.

Legal loophole seized on by anti-deathpenalty types who dont give a **** about the individual or his crimes.
Click to expand...

Opinion.
Those same individuals were pushing not for an overturning of the conviction but of a commuting of the sentence.
Click to expand...

You can't ask much more than that from the great state of Texas.

Thems the facts and that case has no bearing on the case in Iran.
Click to expand...

Do you know how to read? This is getting tedious.

US diplomats have in fact met with the hikers.
Click to expand...

That's not legal counsel.

OH...and as for the embassy being notified...we...the US government, the hikers...the public...we all KNOW and knew before the trial didnt we?
Click to expand...

What? You're losing it.

And if there be no actual embassy in Iran...again...your argument fails at every level.
Click to expand...

Lmao, okay this is how I know you have no clue what it is you're talking about. You've just managed to agree that to not provide foreign counsel is a denial of certain legal rights.

So...the relative bearing from one case to the other is...nothing. You know it...you just pretend your strawman is at least a tin man.
Click to expand...

What? Mack, you're starting to lose it. Remember? I'm the one arguing that a denial of legal counsel from one's embassy is a denial of rights. Not you.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, and had we found him before he killed people, he would have been deported and the time he spent in the US wouldn't have mattered, he'd be a Mexican national in need of deportation.
Those American citizens didn't have the right to legal council from Mexico. This guy did. Do you not understand that yet? You like repeating yourself a lot.
My wife speaks Dutch. It doesn't mean Sint Maarten can deny her legal council from the US if she ever broke a law there.
As do most people who break it or follow it.
s these people did.
Do you have any evidence to show that the Americans in Iran didn't? If they were denied legal counsel from their governments, then obviously they did not.

inion.


You can't ask much more than that from the great state of Texas.



Do you know how to read? This is getting tedious.



That's not legal counsel.



What? You're losing it.



Lmao, okay this is how I know you have no clue what it is you're talking about. You've just managed to agree that to not provide foreign counsel is a denial of certain legal rights.



What? Mack, you're starting to lose it. Remember? I'm the one arguing that a denial of legal counsel from one's embassy is a denial of rights. Not you.
Click to expand...
You skpped the fail pail and went to s afail feedbag...and STILLO cling to your completely unrelated and wrong argument. Well...one cant help but admire your tenacity even though it is STILL couched in your stupidity. DO the two cases relate in ANY way? No. Are the two judicial systems even COMPARABLE. No. Yet you cling to this notion that a man that lived in America since the age of TWO, arrested, tried, and convicted (and given a fair trial with adequate legal representation with appeals) for the intentional rape and murder of a child while he was a grown man SOMEHOW in your mind equates to hikers allegeldy spying OR lost, arrested and convicted by a fundamentalist regime that hangs people for being gay.

I dont know if they are spies or just stupid (as I said in my first post in this thread). Regardless...they have been tried and sentenced for their stupidity. You are the one foolish enough to think there is ANY correlation between the two trials. Thats the scary part. Its not just ooops...a mistake...you are actually stupid enough to BELIEVE it.
 
VanceMack said:
You skpped the fail pail and went to s afail feedbag...and STILLO cling to your completely unrelated and wrong argument. Well...one cant help but admire your tenacity even though it is STILL couched in your stupidity. DO the two cases relate in ANY way? No. Are the two judicial systems even COMPARABLE. No. Yet you cling to this notion that a man that lived in America since the age of TWO, arrested, tried, and convicted (and given a fair trial with adequate legal representation with appeals) for the intentional rape and murder of a child while he was a grown man SOMEHOW in your mind equates to hikers allegeldy spying OR lost, arrested and convicted by a fundamentalist regime that hangs people for being gay.
Click to expand...

Straw man and red herrings make your argument look really weak.

I dont know if they are spies or just stupid (as I said in my first post in this thread). Regardless...they have been tried and sentenced for their stupidity. You are the one foolish enough to think there is ANY correlation between the two trials. Thats the scary part. Its not just ooops...a mistake...you are actually stupid enough to BELIEVE it.
Click to expand...

Of course there is a correlation. You keep going back to the facts of the case as if they mattered at all. The international legal framework has to be followed by all. If it isn't then countries who don't follow it, have no right to deny that others do. Do you not understand that yet? Or are you frothing so much you can't understand the simple inconsistency in your argument? How typical of VanceMack. Get utterly destroyed in an argument and then proceed to call everyone stupid. You sound like my daughter when she doesn't get Dora.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Straw man and red herrings make your argument look really weak.



Of course there is a correlation. You keep going back to the facts of the case as if they mattered at all. The international legal framework has to be followed by all. If it isn't then countries who don't follow it, have no right to deny that others do. Do you not understand that yet? Or are you frothing so much you can't understand the simple inconsistency in your argument? How typical of VanceMack. Get utterly destroyed in an argument and then proceed to call everyone stupid. You sound like my daughter when she doesn't get Dora.
Click to expand...
I only point out the blatantly stupid arguments when people make them. I know...I know...it seems like I point out a LOT of your blatantly stupid arguments. There is an alternative...stop making blatantly stupid arguments. You equate the US judicial system with Iran. Stupid beyond words. You equate 3 lost hikers with a rapist/murderer. Stupid beyond words. You throw out an anti-death penalty argument in a thread involving the justice system of an extremist fundamentalist muslim country. Yes...I know you can see the pattern. If your daughter doesnt 'get' Dora, maybe its genetic.
 
It's difficult to have much sympathy for the terminally stupid. I don't want to sound harsh, but damn! Who the hell thinks it's a swell idea to go hiking along the border in a war zone without a map, a compass or, apparently, a lick of common sense.

Considering that they were found guilty of spying, they're damned lucky they didn't get the death penalty.
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
It's difficult to have much sympathy for the terminally stupid. I don't want to sound harsh, but damn! Who the hell thinks it's a swell idea to go hiking along the border in a war zone without a map, a compass or, apparently, a lick of common sense.

Considering that they were found guilty of spying, they're damned lucky they didn't get the death penalty.
Click to expand...

That's what I never understood. What the heck were they doing hiking along the border of a war zone?!
 
Hatuey said:
.... As I remember correctly, many on this board seemed to have no issue with a Mexican national being executed by the state of Texas even though Texas clearly broke international law in denying him certain rights. We now have no grounds to demand that our citizens be returned safely. Thanks Texas!
Click to expand...

I think these hikers got what they deserved. They knowingly went hiking near or the border of a country that is hostile to Americans. Thats like gay rights advocacy going to hard core muslim middle eastern country to protest for gay rights and then wondering why the next day they are about to be beheaded. When Americans do retarded **** like that we should let them rot in that country. I do not care if they are spies or just hikers as they claim to be.

Not sure that what happened in Texas is a similar situation seeing how Iran is hostile to Americans and Texas gave the murderer a fair trial.Those people wouldn't have got a fair trial regardless if Texas caved to globalist pieces of **** or not.
 
Do you hear yourself talking? How is it stupid to go hiking anywhere, we are supposed to be free. Now at the moment everybody is at war or arguing over nothing. This world has gone to crap. You can tell by what u said, by the harsh sentence and finally by politics. Yet I still say GOD bless your sweet little heart.


Tigger said:
8 years for Gross and Utter stupidity. My only complaint is that their female companion should be serving it with them. ANYONE stupid enough to go hiking along the border of a country like Iran gets exactly what they deserve. I have no doubt they're not spies and that the Iranian military crossed over into Iraq to cease them. However, they were stupid enough to go hiking in that area, and now they have to pay the price for that.
Click to expand...
 
FREE BRADLEY MANNING, Preznit Obummer!!!:peace
 
i kind of doubt they were "government spies". probably a couple young dumb asses trying to make
a name for theirselves in the world of liberal journalism and thought crossing the iranian border and
getting an "exclusive" on how friendly the people were and what a great place it was would definitely
get them a job at msnbc.
they took the chance, they paid the price. sometimes $h!t just don't work out the way we want it to.
 
TheTruthnUs? said:
Do you hear yourself talking? How is it stupid to go hiking anywhere,
Click to expand...

Lets forget for a second the obvious danger of Iraq being war zone and please tell us how smart it is go hiking on the border or near the border of a country that is hostile to Americans? Please explain the intelligence in that. If a black man in the 1950s knowingly went a KKK meeting out in the woods in the dark all by himself, most people would say that is beyond stupid. If Perez Hilton went to Mecca where a bunch of hard core Muslims are all by himself without any security most people would say that is beyond stupid. If a conservative all by him self went to counter a pro-abortion rally in San Fransisco most people would say that is beyond stupid. If Michael Richards went into a black neighborhood all by himself and shouted nigger a few times most people would say that is beyond stupidity.

How is it stupid to go hiking anywhere,we are supposed to be free.
Click to expand...

This is where you are devoid of any reality. We are not free to go traveling where ever the hell we want. We can not trespass into other people's property and other countries.


Now at the moment everybody is at war or arguing over nothing. This world has gone to crap. You can tell by what u said, by the harsh sentence and finally by politics. Yet I still say GOD bless your sweet little heart.
Click to expand...

I bet that because of that harsh sentence no more quote and quote hikers or dumb asses will ever go hiking on or near the border of a country that is hostile towards Americans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom