Federal Judge upholds new terror law

[Balta1701]

Post of the year, right there.

 

But of course, wa wa waaaaaaahh we have to "protect" these jerks to "rise above it all". Look, indefinite imprisonment is too good for these guys, they'll get treated better in our prisons then they will outside of it. I do NOT condone torture or any of that garbage, but otherwise, let them sit.

But what about the ones who weren't actually guilty of anything, and were picked up due to the scale of the sweep-ups/size of the rewards being offered without confirmation of anything? What about the people who weren't actually top-level AQ folks?

[YASNY]

But what about the ones who weren't actually guilty of anything, and were picked up due to the scale of the sweep-ups/size of the rewards being offered without confirmation of anything? What about the people who weren't actually top-level AQ folks?

 

That's why war sucks. Innocents suffer. It's always been that way, always will be that way.

[southsideirish71]

That's why war sucks. Innocents suffer. It's always been that way, always will be that way.

 

Part of the problem today is that people think that war is a video game. That there is no mistakes, that there should be no causalities. A house is next to a radar installation and the house gets hits by either the missle or rubble from the radar installation going down. Instead of asking why there are dumasses who live near an obvious military target, we get CNN and the rest posting how we are targetting civilians. We are dropping bombs from a plane that is high above moving at high speed avoiding sams and flak fire, and then while banking away, the same pilot is lazing a target, while trying not to get blown out of the sky. And then if they miss, we then want them brought up on charges. If you are too stupid to live near a military target during a war then if you die its darwins law.

 

How about this then. Instead of locking these people up when we encounter them on the battlefield and then worrying about their civil rights, when you run into them and they are shooting at you. Kill them, dont arrest them, shoot them, bomb them and then the problem is solved. I am still shocked that they didnt kill Saddam when the found him in that hole.

[Balta1701]

The level of inhumanity on display here sometimes is just staggering.

[YASNY]

The level of inhumanity on display here sometimes is just staggering.

 

The level off terrorist ass-kissing on here, at our own peril, is incomprehensible.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

And I'm talking about the kind of people that will slit a reporters throat on camera and braodcast the tape across the world or the type of people that will hang and burn the bodies of non-combatants from a bridge. The type of people that will drag the beheaded bodies of American's through the street. The are not deserving of the protections of OUR constitution and have no legitimate claim to those protecetions. The method of war that they have chosen to wage denies them the protections of the Geneva convention. They made their choices and they started this s*** by slaughtering nearly 3000 of our citizens. As far as their human rights are concerned, I could care less. f*** them!

Or the kinds of people who will beat prisoners to death, put them in naked piles while taking smiling photos, making them stand shrouded on boxes while holding electrical wires!

 

Just because of where you were pushed out of your mom at does not mean that they should get less rights. As the late, great Thomas Paine once wrote: He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

 

I'm not ready to give the government blanket authority to arrest people and rest on just their assurances that these people are terrorists, especially given the scope of the arrests. It's not like the US government has ever abused their authority before. Those criticizing indefinite detainment are not "terrorist coddlers". We're people who aren't ready to give the government carte blanche to do whatever the Hell they want without being skeptical about their assurances, especially given the track record of the US government to abuse any authority given to it.

 

Take this study by Syracuse University for instance that really shows a lot of data that the median prison sentence was 0-5 years and that 67% of the cases were deemed that they were not worth prosecuting. http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/terrorism/169/

 

And if we want to get technical, our CIA and military programs in the Middle East especially countries like Iran/Iraq that helped to put fundamentalist (and notably anti-Commie) Islamics in power while slaughtering and sabotaging any opposition movements, the unquestioned support for Israel as they committed human rights violations like the slaughters at Sabra and Shatila were long before 9/11.

[Balta1701]

The level off terrorist ass-kissing on here, at our own peril, is incomprehensible.

Giving someone a trial = ass kissing. Remarkable.

[YASNY]

Giving someone a trial = ass kissing. Remarkable.

 

What the f*** ever. More concerned with terrorists than Americans. Remarkable.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

The level off terrorist ass-kissing on here, at our own peril, is incomprehensible.

I remember being skeptical of the US government and their assurances even though data, research and human rights groups have debunked a lot of their assurances. But I don't remember doing that.

 

C'mon YAS. You're better than that sort of vitriol.

 

And before you ask, I was trying my best to be respectful in my long post in this thread. I just had the images of Abu Ghraib in my head too when you were talking about inhumanity.

 

And with this Americans vs 'terrorists', what about the idea of: Wrong is wrong. No matter who does it or says it.

[YASNY]

I remember being skeptical of the US government and their assurances even though data, research and human rights groups have debunked a lot of their assurances. But I don't remember doing that.

 

C'mon YAS. You're better than that sort of vitriol.

 

And before you ask, I was trying my best to be respectful in my long post in this thread. I just had the images of Abu Ghraib in my head too when you were talking about inhumanity.

 

And with this Americans vs 'terrorists', what about the idea of: Wrong is wrong. No matter who does it or says it.

 

That vitriol wasn't directed your way. As for the wrong vs wrong question ... I see it as us vs them and they aren't playing by the accepted rules of war, so therefore we have to at least be able to bend the rules. Yes, we humiliated some of the at AG. It wasn't right ... some soldiers got out of hand ... but we aren't executing them, burning their bodies or dragging their corpses through the streets. In fact, I've seen footage of a US soldier or marine get hit with a sniper's bullet .. but his body armor saved him. After retaliation and capture, this very soldier treated the wounds of the sniper. But you never hear about that s***. Yet, humiliation at AG gets thrown in our faces over and over and over and over and over again. I'm tired of it. And I'm tired of kowtowing to liberal agenda in this country. It will eventually be our downfall.

[Balta1701]

That vitriol wasn't directed your way. As for the wrong vs wrong question ... I see it as us vs them and they aren't playing by the accepted rules of war, so therefore we have to at least be able to bend the rules. Yes, we humiliated some of the at AG. It wasn't right ... some soldiers got out of hand ... but we aren't executing them, burning their bodies or dragging their corpses through the streets. In fact, I've seen footage of a US soldier or marine get hit with a sniper's bullet .. but his body armor saved him. After retaliation and capture, this very soldier treated the wounds of the sniper. But you never hear about that s***. Yet, humiliation at AG gets thrown in our faces over and over and over and over and over again. I'm tired of it. And I'm tired of kowtowing to liberal agenda in this country. It will eventually be our downfall.

There's a difference between bending the rules and breaking the rules.

 

I'll give you a counter-example. A few years ago, the U.S. learned from some source that there were a few Cole bombing suspects in a car in Yemen. The U.S. Blew them up. Was that the right decision? In my view, 100% yes. We had to violate a country's airspace to hit them, and we did , but we eliminated a potentially immediate threat to the U.S. That is a wartime operation, and it's the type you tolerate in this sort of flexible war - the targeting of the opposition's leadership wherever they are.

 

On the other hand, there is a very different thing going on at Gitmo. There we have people who are no longer a threat, who may not have been a threat in the first place, being held indefinately, with years going by before any of them were granted POW status. The law in this country is actually very clear, and it was upheld in the Hamdan case...either those captured are actual criminals, and therefore deserve the simple right of a fair trial before they are shut away forever, or they are prisoners of war and should be accorded as such.

 

The people at Gitmo are off the battlefield. They are no longer a threat to anyone. Some of them may not have even been on a battlefield to begin with. There is simply no benefit to the United States to hold them indefinately without trial. It makes us look horrible, and it gains us nothing.

[YASNY]

There's a difference between bending the rules and breaking the rules.

 

I'll give you a counter-example. A few years ago, the U.S. learned from some source that there were a few Cole bombing suspects in a car in Yemen. The U.S. Blew them up. Was that the right decision? In my view, 100% yes. We had to violate a country's airspace to hit them, and we did , but we eliminated a potentially immediate threat to the U.S. That is a wartime operation, and it's the type you tolerate in this sort of flexible war - the targeting of the opposition's leadership wherever they are.

 

On the other hand, there is a very different thing going on at Gitmo. There we have people who are no longer a threat, who may not have been a threat in the first place, being held indefinately, with years going by before any of them were granted POW status. The law in this country is actually very clear, and it was upheld in the Hamdan case...either those captured are actual criminals, and therefore deserve the simple right of a fair trial before they are shut away forever, or they are prisoners of war and should be accorded as such.

 

The people at Gitmo are off the battlefield. They are no longer a threat to anyone. Some of them may not have even been on a battlefield to begin with. There is simply no benefit to the United States to hold them indefinately without trial. It makes us look horrible, and it gains us nothing.

 

The last paragraph is a contridiction within itself. They are off the battlefield and no longer a threat. That is the benefit to the United States to continue to hold them.

[Balta1701]

The last paragraph is a contridiction within itself. They are off the battlefield and no longer a threat. That is the benefit to the United States to continue to hold them.

Then give them a fair trial and convict them. If the United States can't prove what should be a fairly simple case, then why should I judge them to be a threat?

[YASNY]

Then give them a fair trial and convict them. If the United States can't prove what should be a fairly simple case, then why should I judge them to be a threat?

 

Maybe its because we have too many bleeding heart liberals on the bench ... people like that jerk in Vermont that gave a child rapist probation. What's wrong with a military tribunal? This is war. Our soldier that allegedly raped and killed that girl in Iraq and her family, he's facing a military courtmartial. Why should these assholes get the benefit of a civilian trial? That sounds like a double standard to me. I'm all for a trial if it's it a military tribunal. But no, that's too harsh on these poor mistreated murdering thugs.

[NorthSideSox72]

I am just fine with military tribunals, in the military justice system, if that is what is called for.

 

You know what? People here are going to scream at the conservatives for being hateful and short-sighted, and others will scream at the liberals about kissing terrorists' asses. And its all B.S.

 

But I do see a theme here, and in a portion of the general public, that I find disgusting and dangerous. Its the idea that because someone doesn't agree with the way we are handling this "war on terror", that we are somehow cowards. You know what? I'll say something I've never said here. If you think that my views are out of cowardice or fear, then F*** YOU.

 

There, I said it. Suspend me. I don't care. But don't think for a second this is about courage. Courage means doing the right thing even when you have every reason in the world not to. Allowing hatred to pull us into a pit of slime is where fear is.

[Balta1701]

Maybe its because we have too many bleeding heart liberals on the bench ... people like that jerk in Vermont that gave a child rapist probation. What's wrong with a military tribunal? This is war. Our soldier that allegedly raped and killed that girl in Iraq and her family, he's facing a military courtmartial. Why should these assholes get the benefit of a civilian trial? That sounds like a double standard to me. I'm all for a trial if it's it a military tribunal. But no, that's too harsh on these poor mistreated murdering thugs.

I don't actually have a problem with these trials being conducted in military tribunals, and I don't believe the law does either. Unfortunately, it's the Bush administration that does. Because, you see, military tribunals actually have similar rules compared with civilian trials, namely, the charges actually have to make sense, the defendent has to be given a right to an attorney, the court must be created by the Congress and in the system below the Supreme Court, and the defendents have some sort of right to see the evidence against them. The Bush administration has tried to set this up in such a way that it's basically a kangaroo court, where the U.S. is judge and jury all at once and the defendents are basically given no right to even know what the charges are, let alone defend themselves.

 

Taking from the Supreme Court's ruling in the Hamdan case:

Whether or not the President has independent power, absent congressional authorization, to convene military commissions, he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers.

And another section:

At a minimum, the Government must make a substan-tial showing that the crime for which it seeks to try a defendant by military commission is acknowledged to be an offense against the law of war. That burden is far from satisfied here. The crime of “conspiracy” has rarely if ever been tried as such in this country by any law-of-war military commission not exercising some other form of juris-diction,35 and does not appear in either the Geneva Con-ventions or the Hague Conventions—the major treaties on the law of war.36

[YASNY]

I am just fine with military tribunals, in the military justice system, if that is what is called for.

 

You know what? People here are going to scream at the conservatives for being hateful and short-sighted, and others will scream at the liberals about kissing terrorists' asses. And its all B.S.

 

But I do see a theme here, and in a portion of the general public, that I find disgusting and dangerous. Its the idea that because someone doesn't agree with the way we are handling this "war on terror", that we are somehow cowards. You know what? I'll say something I've never said here. If you think that my views are out of cowardice or fear, then F*** YOU.

 

There, I said it. Suspend me. I don't care. But don't think for a second this is about courage. Courage means doing the right thing even when you have every reason in the world not to. Allowing hatred to pull us into a pit of slime is where fear is.

 

Eh. I just see it this way. These terrorists are the epitome of inhumanity ... and they are proud it based on their actions and the fact that they advertise those actions. When it comes down to a choice of them suffering some less than humane treatment, or some of us suffering flagrant inhumane treatment ... I'll throw them under the bus every time. Maybe I'm the coward. If so, this coward is going to go down fighting and I don't care what the rest of the world thinks about it. If someone is in my yard and I know they want to kill me, I'm not going to depend on the police to get there before they cross my threshold. One step in my house and they are meat. These bastards have already come into our 'house' and 3000 of us are dead. That's more than enough for me.

[NorthSideSox72]

Eh. I just see it this way. These terrorists are the epitome of inhumanity ... and they are proud it based on their actions and the fact that they advertise those actions. When it comes down to a choice of them suffering some less than humane treatment, or some of us suffering flagrant inhumane treatment ... I'll throw them under the bus every time. Maybe I'm the coward. If so, this coward is going to go down fighting and I don't care what the rest of the world thinks about it. If someone is in my yard and I know they want to kill me, I'm not going to depend on the police to get there before they cross my threshold. One step in my house and they are meat. These bastards have already come into our 'house' and 3000 of us are dead. That's more than enough for me.

If you are going to use that analogy, then make it accurate. What you describe is what Afghanistan was supposed to be (and started off being). Whats happened since then is a witch hunt for people who may or may not be considering entering your property with ill intent. That is what I have a problem with.

[kapkomet]

If you are going to use that analogy, then make it accurate. What you describe is what Afghanistan was supposed to be (and started off being). Whats happened since then is a witch hunt for people who may or may not be considering entering your property with ill intent. That is what I have a problem with.

They themselves say Iraq is the battleground. That's good enough for me for us to take them out.

 

I know what line's coming up next. Saddam's regime supported these dirtbags, so he was a part of the larger war on terror. One domino at a time.

[YASNY]

If you are going to use that analogy, then make it accurate. What you describe is what Afghanistan was supposed to be (and started off being). Whats happened since then is a witch hunt for people who may or may not be considering entering your property with ill intent. That is what I have a problem with.

 

I think the analogy as I presented it was most appropriate.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I don't see where OUR constitution should apply to these people in any way, shape or form ... unless they are US citizens. The Geneva convention is for uniformed personal. If you are caught spying while blending into the populace, not in uniform ... you are S.O.L. as far as Geneva is concerned. These people, and I used the word loosely here, are not in the uniform of any nation's military. Geneva does not apply.

 

 

Thats the point Ive been making all along. At least someone around here gets it.

 

Then give them a fair trial and convict them. If the United States can't prove what should be a fairly simple case, then why should I judge them to be a threat?

 

 

We've been trying to get military tribunals for these people for literally years now but the bleeding heart leftists dont want that. They want them in American courtrooms where they DEFENITELY dont belong.

 

 

It is the left that is depriving these people of trials.

[Texsox]

Sorry, I don't care about the human rights of terrorists. They want to kill us. That's all I need to know.

 

I don't care about terrorists either, I do care that we figure out who is a terrorist and who isn't. I don't care if due process occurs in the military courtroom or civilian US courts. But there needs to be a process that determines their fate.

 

The right doesn't want them in civilian courts, but doesn't want to call them military either. So they won't give them a trial in a civilian courtroom. The right wants to try civilians in a military court. Gee that makes sense.

 

The left agrees they aren't military and wants to try them in civilian courts. They didn't break laws in the US but the left wants to try them in a US civilian court. Gee, that makes sense.

 

Both sides are preventing trials from happening. IMHO call them enemy combatants, follow the Geneva conventions.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I don't care about terrorists either, I do care that we figure out who is a terrorist and who isn't. I don't care if due process occurs in the military courtroom or civilian US courts. But there needs to be a process that determines their fate.

 

The right doesn't want them in civilian courts, but doesn't want to call them military either. So they won't give them a trial in a civilian courtroom. The right wants to try civilians in a military court. Gee that makes sense.

 

The left agrees they aren't military and wants to try them in civilian courts. They didn't break laws in the US but the left wants to try them in a US civilian court. Gee, that makes sense.

 

Both sides are preventing trials from happening. IMHO call them enemy combatants, follow the Geneva conventions.

 

 

These people are foreginers and terrorist suspects to boot and they were captured on foregin soil. They have no business in a U.S. civilian courtroom. PERIOD! If the left would stop holding up the process with their lawsuits these people could get their trial and we could be done with them one way or the other.

[YASNY]

These people are foreginers and terrorist suspects to boot and they were captured on foregin soil. They have no business in a U.S. civilian courtroom. PERIOD! If the left would stop holding up the process with their lawsuits these people could get their trial and we could be done with them one way or the other.

 

Preach it, brother.

[kapkomet]

These people are foreginers and terrorist suspects to boot and they were captured on foregin soil. They have no business in a U.S. civilian courtroom. PERIOD! If the left would stop holding up the process with their lawsuits these people could get their trial and we could be done with them one way or the other.

But but but but THEIR RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!!!!

 

They lost their "rights" when they declared that they wanted to kill us.

 

Thank me very much.