• 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!

First Guantanamo Detainee to Come to NYC for Trial

tlmorg02 said:
Here is what I do not understand, you assert that terrorists should not be tried in the United States as civilians because they are military, not civilian criminals, yet Bush on several occassions said that he was going to capture Bin Laden and have him tried in a U.S. courtroom.

While the Bush Administration pursues its official policy of arresting and trying bin Laden in a US court, however, it must also re-examine its policies in the Middle East: on the Israel-Palestine conflict, on economic sanctions against Iraq, on isolating Iran and on its stationing of US troops and military hardware on the Arabian Peninsula. That is the only sure way to prevent a recurrence of the September 11 tragedy. --http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011008/hiro

It was stated policy, so I guess there is a question as to who a terrorist is. Surely Obama is a terrorist?!?!
Click to expand...

Osama bi Laden is a civilian. He ordered the attack but did not participate.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
No, if you're at war with someone, any military target is fair game; and it doesn't matter how you do it - car bomb or cruise missile.
Click to expand...

So wait, do you consider military targets relevant to the collection of those same military resources? If this is the case, then civilian targets are also "fair game."
 
Maxientius said:
These are neither unprovoked nor suprise, excepting Pearl Habor which was a terrorist attack. You are a fool not to see the difference.
Click to expand...

You are on drugs!! The first Kamakzi attacks were surprise, no one had ever witnessed such a tactic. Also, surpise attacks occur all the time. By your definition, when the U.S. surpises the Taliban with drone bombings they are behaving as terrorists.
 
tlmorg02 said:
You are on drugs!! The first Kamakzi attacks were surprise, no one had ever witnessed such a tactic. Also, surpise attacks occur all the time. By your definition, when the U.S. surpises the Taliban with drone bombings they are behaving as terrorists.
Click to expand...

Kamakzi were a new tactic started DURING the war. Therefore, not unprovoked. Same with American ambushes or suprise attacks. They fit part but all of the definition.
 
MrVicchio said:
Doing the right thing?

from 1990-2001 we treated Terrorist like criminals.

2001-2008 we treated them like a military threat..

The difference? Multiple attacks on US Soil, embassies, ships... and so forth.

Treat them like Military threat... no attacks.


So it's smart to go back... to the way that us being attacked? Riight.
Click to expand...


Haha, proves how stupid you are when you said 2001-2008. Obama took office in 2009, and actually made things right.


You make me laugh.
 
Maxientius said:
Kamakzi were a new tactic started DURING the war. Therefore, not unprovoked. Same with American ambushes or suprise attacks. They fit part but all of the definition.
Click to expand...

We have been fighting insurgents for many, many years now, pre and post-9/11. By now, insurgent strikes against the military are expected and provoked. When you setout to wipe the Taliban off of the map, from their perspective, it is provoked.
 
Maxientius said:
So wait, do you consider military targets relevant to the collection of those same military resources? If this is the case, then civilian targets are also "fair game."
Click to expand...

Huh ??? :confused:
 
tlmorg02 said:
Here is what I do not understand, you assert that terrorists should not be tried in the United States as civilians because they are military, not civilian criminals,
Click to expand...

I never made that argument; I stated clearly that they were NON-UNIFORMED enemy combatants or terrorists in training camps. There is no “traditional” evidence that can be used to link them to a specific crime. Therefore, trying them in civilian courts is a waste of time that will lead to their release; which appears the goal of the American “Communist” Liberties Union.

There is a HUGE difference between the terrorists being held in Guantanamo and say the ones we CAUGHT in the US who attempted the first Trade Center bombing. There was ACTUAL evidence linking them to the crime.

tlmorg02 said:
yet Bush on several occassions said that he was going to capture Bin Laden and have him tried in a U.S. courtroom.

While the Bush Administration pursues its official policy of arresting and trying bin Laden in a US court, however, it must also re-examine its policies in the Middle East: on the Israel-Palestine conflict, on economic sanctions against Iraq, on isolating Iran and on its stationing of US troops and military hardware on the Arabian Peninsula. That is the only sure way to prevent a recurrence of the September 11 tragedy. --http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011008/hiro

It was stated policy, so I guess there is a question as to who a terrorist is. Surely Obama is a terrorist?!?!
Click to expand...

Bin Laden has been directly linked to a crime; HUGE difference again. He was the master planner for the 9-11 attacks and can be directly linked to them.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
No, if you're at war with someone, any military target is fair game; and it doesn't matter how you do it - car bomb or cruise missile.
Click to expand...

I see you are having difficulty with the concept of NON-UNIFORMED enemy combatants and their tactic of hiding as civilians among the population; what part do you NOT get?

We aren't fighting a "military" force wearing the uniforms of their nations; hell they don't even represent a "nation" which also disqualifies them from the Geneva Conventions and UN Conventions.
 
Maxientius said:
These are neither unprovoked nor suprise, excepting Pearl Habor which was a terrorist attack. You are a fool not to see the difference.
Click to expand...

Pearl Harbor was a terrorist attack? I am laughing hysterically at this one.

Dude, claiming that a military force representing a nation as being terrorist is quite amusing. You need to review the definition of "terrorist."

It was indeed an unprovoked surprise attack, but it hardly comes close to the definition of "terrorism."
:rofl
 
Truth Detector said:
I never made that argument; I stated clearly that they were NON-UNIFORMED enemy combatants or terrorists in training camps. There is no “traditional” evidence that can be used to link them to a specific crime. Therefore, trying them in civilian courts is a waste of time that will lead to their release; which appears the goal of the American “Communist” Liberties Union.

There is a HUGE difference between the terrorists being held in Guantanamo and say the ones we CAUGHT in the US who attempted the first Trade Center bombing. There was ACTUAL evidence linking them to the crime.



Bin Laden has been directly linked to a crime; HUGE difference again. He was the master planner for the 9-11 attacks and can be directly linked to them.
Click to expand...


So when Bush and Cheney are directly linked to crimes that involved torture and murder can they then be referred to as murderers and terrorists?

So you are attempting to suggest that someone who plans criminal acts cannot be prosecuted for them?
 
Last edited:
tlmorg02 said:
We have been fighting insurgents for many, many years now, pre and post-9/11. By now, insurgent strikes against the military are expected and provoked. When you setout to wipe the Taliban off of the map, from their perspective, it is provoked.
Click to expand...

Are we at war with the Taliban?
 
goldendog said:
So when Bush and Cheney are directly linked to crimes that involved torture and murder can they then be referred to as murderers and terrorists?
Click to expand...

So now you are engaging into a circle of absurdity making such asinine claims to avoid coherent debate? :roll:

goldendog said:
So you are attempting to suggest that someone who plans criminal acts cannot be prosecuted for them?
Click to expand...

Where did I suggest that someone who plans criminal acts cannot be prosecuted for them? Do you have a point or just desperately grasp for straws in an effort to remain uninformed?
 
Maxientius said:
Are we at war with the Taliban?
Click to expand...

Yes we are at war with the Taliban. President Bush made these demands:

By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder. And tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban:

-- Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land.

-- Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned.

-- Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.

-- Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities.

-- Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion.
Click to expand...

Sounds like he is saying do it or face war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom