- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,969
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Location
- Dallas TEXAS
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Two words unknown to the right wing.
Islamic Terrorist
Two words unknown to the left wing.
Two words unknown to the right wing.
You mean due process of law? That's a basic part of even your value system.....isn't it?
You mean a fair an open trial in the very place where the crime took place?
You mean showing the world we've decided to go back to our basic values?
Yes this is really what the liberals want our country to look like.
Ok I'll simmer down. However, since you've made it your business to engage me let's have a comprehensive debate. What say you? The subject of this thread is the NY trial for the alleged 9/11 mastermind. What do you think about the decision to bring KSM and the other members of the Gitmo Five to the US District Court (SDNY) for trial? I'm interested in your conclusion on this subject and the reasons underlying your conclusion. Please state them. Thanks.
You mean due process of law? That's a basic part of even your value system.....isn't it?
You mean a fair an open trial in the very place where the crime took place?
You mean showing the world we've decided to go back to our basic values?
Yes this is really what the liberals want our country to look like.
It is not and yes we do!
Hell we just spent 7 billion for 7,000 more Humvees in Afghanistan. We spent $79 million to see if the Moon has water!
You may want the World to see us as barbarians, but many of us don't.
Seems more like Gimli!
You may want the World to see us as barbarians, but many of us don't.
Niccolò Machiavelli said:The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.
Ah paranoia, the heart that beats inside every conservative!
Originally Posted by Niccolò Machiavelli
The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.
Machiavelli's support for this belief:
"Love is held by a chain of obligation, which because of men's wickedness, is broken on every occasion for the sake of selfish profit; but their fear is secured by a dread of punishment which never fails you."
As true today than when he wrote it.
My kids do what i say, not because I love them and they love me, but because they also fear me to a degree - I have authority over them and that is what's respected.
There's a time and a place for everything and everything in moderation.
I've already presented an argument against trying KSM in the criminal justice system. I think he should be summarily executed. The military should sell raffle tickets to the combat MOS's and whoever wins gets to shoot him; they would sell A LOT of tickets. Great propaganda victory for the troops.
And all of this is totally justifiable under international and domestic law since neither apply to KSM, the notorious terrorist mastermind that planned 9/11.
He does not deserve a trial.
Actually, you haven't presented an argument that can withstand critical scrutiny. You've merely presented a series of disjointed conclusions without articulating the factual basis underlying each logical step required to reach those conclusions.
I am not at all hostile to your conclusions, but don't seek me out unless you are willing to do more than to pretend to go through the motions of debating. If you are prepared to demonstrate rigorous intellectual analysis I am still prepared for an exchange with you. If not please have the common courtesy of not communicating with me again.
The Geneva Conventions were signed in 1949 and remain the most popular regulations concerning the laws of war. There are four conventions: Convention I addresses the treatment of wounded and sick soldiers in the field of battle; Convention II includes the treatment of wounded and sick soldiers at sea; Convention III regulates the treatment of Prisoners of War; Convention IV concerns the treatment of citizens in times of war.
The Convention under debate is the third Convention, specifically Article 3, which establishes the guidelines for POW treatment, stating they should be treated "humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria." It then defines behavior against POWs that is prohibited, the most relevant to the current situation being "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular murders of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture."
It doesn't take a Congressional Commission to determine that the photos at Abu Ghraib detail examples of "outrages upon personal dignity" and therefore a violation of the Geneva Convention. No one (except Rush Limbaugh, who refers to it as "good old American pornography') is arguing that the treatment of the prisoners is cruel and humiliating. The point of contention is whether these prisoners — and any prisoners in the war on terror — deserve the status of POW. Rush Limbaugh and like-minded individuals say they do not because, according to Article 4 of the third Convention, a POW is defined in part as " having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance . . . of carrying arms openly . . . of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
Clearly, Al-Queda and other terrorists do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. A suicide bomber does not openly carry arms. A hijacker of a plane does not wear a uniform identifying him as such. Furthermore, the Geneva Conventions, like most treaties, structure legal relationships between Nation States, not between Nation States and private interest groups and non-state actors, such as Al-Queda.
So, case closed. Perhaps Al Gore should stop harping on Bush for dishonoring the Geneva Conventions, because, according to these same conventions, the terrorists do not qualify for POW status. Except things are never so simple. The Geneva Conventions are long and complicated, and while Article 3 and 4 are the most discussed, there are over 100 articles in the third Convention alone, all of which discuss the status and treatment of a POW. In fact, one needs to look no further than Article 5 to see that the definition of a POW is not as clear-cut as Mr. Limbaugh would have us believe:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Ethies got a point. He's not a combatant, he's a terrorist.
Terrorist Prisoners of WarThe Geneva Convention Question
Moderator's Warning: |
Textmaster and tjinta ibis...both of you stop the personal attacks or you will be thread banned. |
Those competent tribunals were set up, all detainees have their status determined by a competent military tribunal, and if there is cause to hold them they are then entitled to a trial by a military commission. That is what was spelled out in the Military Commissions Act.
New York trial for alleged 9/11 mastermind - Times Online
Interesting, they will be tried under a civilian court, I wonder if evidence obtained through questionable means will be dismissed
Here I'll show you why you're a hypocrite and are intentionally being dense or just your usual inconsistent self. The best part is that I'll show you by quoting a piece Libertarians cum all over themselves quoting constantly which just goes to show what a face palm moment this will be for you :
But I'm sure they weren't talking about fair trials. They were just talking about the silly stuff like voting and becoming president. Your hypocrisy is showing Ethereal.
But I'm sure they weren't talking about fair trials. They were just talking about the silly stuff like voting and becoming president. Your hypocrisy is showing Ethereal.
I've been a lawyer longer than you've been a jerk.:lol:
Entirely possible. That is the price for obtaining information through questionable means. However, it seems clear they have enough evidence to convict the terrorists even without the tortured confessions. Otherwise they would not have felt confident in bringing them to trial.
I've been a lawyer longer than you've been a jerk.:lol:
You mean due process of law? That's a basic part of even your value system.....isn't it?
You mean a fair an open trial in the very place where the crime took place?
You mean showing the world we've decided to go back to our basic values?
Yes this is really what the liberals want our country to look like.