jgoose71 0 #51 October 4, 2011 Maybe I am over simplifying this, but this is my take: When Congress signed joint resolution 23 on Sept 14, 2001, they started the global war on terrorism. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.J.RES.23.ENR:# After that, anyone working with Al Qeda, who was the target of the resolution is now considered an enemy combatant, and get afforded all the same targeting considerations as any other member of Al Qeda. As far as due process, if he came back across a border or entered a country with an extradition treaty, ya, we could get him. But while he was hiding out in Yemen, he was on a "battle field". Typically we don't go in to capture people when on an active battle field, especially when they are surrounded by fellow Al Qeda members actively plotting against us. He is considered an active threat. My $.02"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #52 October 4, 2011 Quote ________________________________________ In Reply To ________________________________________ Once again, you are comparing an immediate threat to a non-immediate threat. An entirely different situation. You are talking about self-defense there. Versus preemptive offense. ________________________________________ Okay, so at the start of the first Gulf War, no shots have been fired, there is no immediate threat. Do we have to avoid targeting a SAM site for the first wave of bombing when we learn that a US citizen is at the controls? Quote Different situation, as well. That was war with a country. Also internationally sanctioned. It also seems to explain why GHWBush didn’t go after Hussein to kill him. Quote ________________________________________ In Reply To ________________________________________ Sure we would. Go get him and bring him back. or her. ________________________________________ So you're okay with breaking some laws, just not others? It's okay to break international treaties, which are essentially part of the Constitution once enacted, but we must follow the letter of the law when it comes to treason? I didn’t say that. As I mentioned previously, extradition is something to look for. But one way or another give him due process. Don’t just execute him. That’s what I’m talking about, and why the OBL issue is better for me. I’ve mentioned the issue with sovereignty. Had another country done that to the US we’d consider it an Act of War. I simply operate under the idea that the Constitution (which I have on multiple occasions sworn to defend and uphold) is important. If an exception to Constitutional rights is carved out for “terrorists” then it should be done by Amendment and not by fiat. Quote ________________________________________ In Reply To ________________________________________ the OBL situation is much more like the self-defense issue you discussed. ________________________________________ How? He wasn't posing any more of an immediate threat than Al Alaqui. The only difference I see between the two is that Al Alaqui was supposedly a US citizen by birth. You weren’t paying attention. With OBL they at least tried to take him alive. Perhaps to give him due process. We don’t know because OBL threatened to kill and therefore the choice was either to kill him or be killed (or let the pussy wimp kill one of his wives). I’m limiting this to the due process argument. I’m a supporter of capital punishment – after trial. I’m a supporter of military action. I’m not, however, one who believes that ends justify means. I believe that the single greatest limit to government power is due process of law. That means not taking a person’s property, livelihood, right to defend himself, freedom or life without FIRST giving that person notice of what the government intends to do and the opportunity to defend yourself. Yep. There are significant issues with the workability of what I propose. That’s the point. The Constitution limits the government’s ability to do things, even in a crisis. But this is where leadership comes in. Find a way to get it done with the rules you have in place. Breaking rules here because someone deems it important is caprice. It is fiat. And it is despotism. Nixon said, "If the President does it that means it is not illegal." Fine precedent. Now it is SOP. Bush did it. Cheney supported it. Now Cheney is legitimately calling for Obama to apologize for criticisms of Bush because Obama is doing the same thing, only with greater intensity. Even Daniel Ellsberg said that "all the crimes Nixon committed against me would be legal under Obama." He also had words for Bush, but that Obama is continuing the trend towards more and more power at the expense of liberty. That's my problem. Small steps that over time become huge. And this is a giant one. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 186 #53 October 4, 2011 At the outset of hostilities in Europe some time back, a stick of bombs was released on the wrong target in Guernica, hitting a market square, and a failed recall order resulted in another stick of bombs being dropped on a margarine factory in Rotterdam. Both of these incidents were not scripted, and caused relatively little damage in the grand scheme of things, but were treated as the acts of evil at the hands of monsters in the propaganda generated in response. Fast forward a few short years. Dresden, a city of trivial military value whose numbers were swollen by the influx of refugees, was flattened by combined efforts of the RAF and the USAAF as an object lesson. We did it because we could. Curtis W. LeMay made great strides in his stated intent to "reduce the Japanese population by half," BEFORE the use of nukes. Then you have the use of nukes on population centers, ostensibly for "shock and awe" purposes (though the popular versions claim that it worked, detailed analyses refute this supposition). The point to all this is that, for all our outrage at actions when taken against us, we are happy to engage in behavior every bit as bad if it suits us. We villified the KGB for their "wet work," killing "rogue" dissidents on foreign soil, but claim justification when we do the same damned thing. Don't get me wrong, I am quite pleased that various people who have declared jihad against us have been given the opportunity to see the quality of virgins that await them in paradise, but I am uneasy with the process by which this has taken place. Operation Phoenix was the brainchild of some bright-eyed deep-thinker, where villagers would finger "VC" and special ops types would sneak in and kill them. It turned out that most villagers were not stupid enough to alienate actual VC, but were happy to use the opportunity to resolve long standing feuds, obtain land, eliminate romantic rivals and so forth. I am concerned that our zeal in eliminating people who piss us off will again be harnessed by people whose agenda do not resemble ours even slightly. Our system of checks and balances is massively flawed. It is, however, a vast improvement on any system lacking checks and balances. At any rate, while I approve of these people being removed from the rolls of the living, I am very concerned with the approach taken to do so. Every time this kind of policy has been utilized by a government in the past the results have been the same, and I have a sneaking suspicion that it will prove to be the case this time as well. If we want the moral high ground, we have to follow the rules. If we do not, we have no right to bitch. You can't have it both ways. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanG 1 #54 October 4, 2011 QuoteAs I mentioned previously, extradition is something to look for. But one way or another give him due process. Don’t just execute him. That’s what I’m talking about, and why the OBL issue is better for me. I’ve mentioned the issue with sovereignty. Had another country done that to the US we’d consider it an Act of War. I simply operate under the idea that the Constitution (which I have on multiple occasions sworn to defend and uphold) is important. If an exception to Constitutional rights is carved out for “terrorists” then it should be done by Amendment and not by fiat. I guess it comes down to what you require to satisfy the due process requirement. I don't think you can argue with a straight face that Al Alaqui didn't know he was wanted dead or alive. If we notify someone they are wanted, they flee to a non-extradition country, and proceed to wage war against our country, it don't think it is unreasonable to act to stop that person. If your beef is with the process by which the person is declared wanted, I can agree with you to some degree. I think judicial oversight of the wanted list is appropriate. If you are saying that going to a non-extradition country is like touching "base" in a game of tag, I can't agree with that. QuoteI’m limiting this to the due process argument. I’m a supporter of capital punishment – after trial. I’m a supporter of military action. I’m not, however, one who believes that ends justify means. I believe that the single greatest limit to government power is due process of law. That means not taking a person’s property, livelihood, right to defend himself, freedom or life without FIRST giving that person notice of what the government intends to do and the opportunity to defend yourself. Again, I agree with you. I just think that in this case it is hard to argue that Al Alaqui wasn't given notice of our intent. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #55 October 4, 2011 I see your point. And as we all know, Congress would never pass a law or resolution that would violate the Constitution. And we all know what a marvelous treatment of civil liberties that the Patriot Act has given us. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #56 October 4, 2011 Winsor continues with his well-established pattern of eloquent posts that hit the nail on the head. I think you and I agree on most things. We've probably got about a ten percent disagreement. Quote don't think you can argue with a straight face that Al Alaqui didn't know he was wanted dead or alive. I get that. But let's look at you. Let's say that you found out that you were wanted dead or alive by the US Government. In fact, you know that there's been a kill order signed with your name on it - come across an American law enforcement agent (or military member) and you will likely be shot on sight. Confidence in due process would be low. Receiving notice that you are to be killed is not "notice" in the due process sense. "Notice" means being told what the charge is and what the prospective penalty is and giving you a chance to avoid that penalty by trial via neutral arbiter of fact. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanG 1 #57 October 4, 2011 QuoteI get that. But let's look at you. Let's say that you found out that you were wanted dead or alive by the US Government. In fact, you know that there's been a kill order signed with your name on it - come across an American law enforcement agent (or military member) and you will likely be shot on sight. Confidence in due process would be low. Receiving notice that you are to be killed is not "notice" in the due process sense. "Notice" means being told what the charge is and what the prospective penalty is and giving you a chance to avoid that penalty by trial via neutral arbiter of fact. I think you're right about our level of agreement. I'm a strong believer in the Constitution and due process. I think our difference lies in what is a reasonable process to deal with people who are outside of our control, yet pose a significant threat. If I were living in Yemen specifically to put myself beyond the reach of US law enforcement or military personel, and I received notice (we can quibble about what level of notice is sufficient, but I doubt the Yemeni Post Office does certified mail) that I was wanted dead or alive, I'm sure I could find a way to communicate my desire to surrender. Al Alaqui, as head of communications for Al Queda, could have easily arranged surrender if he wanted to defend himself in court. He chose not to. Now, if you're arguing that a terrorist might not surrender because they don't believe they would receive a fair trial, I can agree with you. I'm a strong believer that the prisoners in Gitmo, even the super scary ones, should be brought to the US and stand up for civilian criminal trials. Not doing so delegitimizes our legal system, and is an insult to American ideals. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rwieder 0 #58 October 4, 2011 I voted "Hell Yes!" They targeted and killed more than 3K people on 9-11, so yeah go for it.-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #59 October 4, 2011 It's an awesome thing - being able to agree to disagree. Your comments are certainly thought provoking. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanG 1 #60 October 4, 2011 Hmm. This isn't right. Mutual respect and polite discourse in SC. What can we do about that? Um, you're a Nazi! There, that's more like it. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #61 October 4, 2011 QuoteI’m limiting this to the due process argument. I’m a supporter of capital punishment – after trial. I’m a supporter of military action. I’m not, however, one who believes that ends justify means. I believe that the single greatest limit to government power is due process of law. That means not taking a person’s property, livelihood, right to defend himself, freedom or life without FIRST giving that person notice of what the government intends to do and the opportunity to defend yourself. Do you feel that way about all of our enemies in the "war on terror" (we should arrest them rather than kill them)? Or just this one? Because I'm not sure what process the enemy is due, other than maybe swift and humane where possible. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BillyVance 34 #62 October 4, 2011 QuoteI voted "Hell Yes!" They targeted and killed more than 3K people on 9-11, so yeah go for it. Right on. THEY declared war on us. In my view, if an American decided they were going to join the terrorists and actively plot to attack us, then fuck 'em. We'll treat the sorry motherfuckers as war combatants. Capture or kill."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 93 #63 October 4, 2011 Quotethe prisoners in Gitmo, even the super scary ones, should be brought to the US and stand up for civilian criminal trials. They aren't accused of committing civilian crimes. They are accused of waging war against us. There is a huge distinction between criminal murder and an act of war. The response is of course different. Very ordinary acts of war on both sides. None of this should be a surprise. I am encouraged to see that some (mostly liberals) want to complain about it.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 93 #64 October 4, 2011 QuoteDo you feel that way about all of our enemies in the "war on terror" (we should arrest them rather than kill them)? Or just this one? Because I'm not sure what process the enemy is due, other than maybe swift and humane where possible. It used to be customary to identify yourself as a soldier. Now that isn't so common, but where that label is clearly the case, then they should be attacked as if we are in a war, which we are. It used to be that being in a state of war meant that it really was awful, and the soldiers expected to be targeted - to be killed whenever their adversary could. The fact that attempts are made to make acts of war have little to no loss of life, that wars are no longer such hell has contributed to them lasting longer.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanG 1 #65 October 4, 2011 QuoteThey aren't accused of committing civilian crimes. Actually, they are. And they should be. By declaring that every jerkoff terrorist group is at war with the US just elevates their status. If we can capture them, like we have with everyone at Gitmo, we should try them like the dirtbag criminals they are. Affording them special status as enemy combatants gives them and their cause undeserved legitimacy. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanG 1 #66 October 4, 2011 QuoteThe fact that attempts are made to make acts of war have little to no loss of life, that wars are no longer such hell has contributed to them lasting longer. One could almost read that as being in favor of civilian casualties. Being at war with an emotion, such as terror, is not the same as being at war with another nation state. The lines get blurry, which is why we're having this discussion. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #67 October 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteThey aren't accused of committing civilian crimes. Actually, they are. And they should be. By declaring that every jerkoff terrorist group is at war with the US just elevates their status. If we can capture them, like we have with everyone at Gitmo, we should try them like the dirtbag criminals they are. Affording them special status as enemy combatants gives them and their cause undeserved legitimacy. Actually, trying them in civilian court instead of holding them as prisoners of war is what gives them and their cause undeserved legitimacy.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanG 1 #68 October 4, 2011 QuoteActually, trying them in civilian court instead of holding them as prisoners of war is what gives them and their cause undeserved legitimacy. I disagree. Claiming they are so dangerous and scary that the must be held on a remote island outpost, and freaking out at the suggestion that they be transfered to the US, gives them way more credit that they are due. The prisoners in Gitmo are just men, not X-Men. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BoogeyMan 0 #69 October 4, 2011 Correct.... Trying them in US civilian court fully grants terrorist all US Constitutional guarantees. Which is ridiculous. The Lockerby bomber committed no acts of terror on US soil. Zero. Yet he killed over two hundred American citizens. "There is no reason for him to be charged in a US court." Think that bullscat over. Terrs are enemy combatants on a global battlefield. When they are found they should be eliminated. More drones, with bigger Hellfire missiles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #70 October 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteActually, trying them in civilian court instead of holding them as prisoners of war is what gives them and their cause undeserved legitimacy. I disagree. Claiming they are so dangerous and scary that the must be held on a remote island outpost, and freaking out at the suggestion that they be transfered to the US, gives them way more credit that they are due. The prisoners in Gitmo are just men, not X-Men. I never claimed they were - care to rejoin the actual conversation?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanG 1 #71 October 4, 2011 QuoteI never claimed they were - care to rejoin the actual conversation? Can you stop being such a pedant for one thread? I never said *you* claimed they were anything. Many of the people objecting to bringing the detainees to the US objected because it was too dangerous. "Many of the people objecting" apparently does not include mnealtx. And if you bothered to read the thread, I was having a thoughtful, polite, and interesting discussion with lawrocket and others until you showed up and had to get snotty, as usual. This thread is likely now dead. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bertt 0 #72 October 4, 2011 I'm pretty sure Osama and his Al Qaeda buddies declared war on all Americans, military and civilian. I guess I could sum this up by having a bumper sticker printed that says, "My war criminal killed your war criminal".You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #73 October 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteThey aren't accused of committing civilian crimes. Actually, they are. And they should be. By declaring that every jerkoff terrorist group is at war with the US just elevates their status. If we can capture them, like we have with everyone at Gitmo, we should try them like the dirtbag criminals they are. Affording them special status as enemy combatants gives them and their cause undeserved legitimacy. On what basis would you propose to limit the actions of non-Americans on foreign soil? A Saudi plotting against us in Yemen isn't really subject to any laws we could draft. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #74 October 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteI never claimed they were - care to rejoin the actual conversation? Can you stop being such a pedant for one thread? Can you stop creating strawmen for one thread? QuoteI never said *you* claimed they were anything. Many of the people objecting to bringing the detainees to the US objected because it was too dangerous. "Many of the people objecting" apparently does not include mnealtx. Doesn't seem to include anyone posting in the thread, either, so why bring it up as a counter-argument? QuoteAnd if you bothered to read the thread, I was having a thoughtful, polite, and interesting discussion with lawrocket and others until you showed up and had to get snotty, as usual. This thread is likely now dead. Actually, the snottiness is all yours. I made a polite response to both of your posts.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #75 October 4, 2011 QuoteDo you feel that way about all of our enemies in the "war on terror" (we should arrest them rather than kill them)? I don't "feel" that way, Dave. My feeling is that every person who plans to deliberately attack a civilian population should be staked down and left for the fucking crows. That's my feeling. My thinking, however, overcomes it. I think that every effort should be made to bring a person in alive. That the person, as a prisoner, should be cared for and afforded the opportunity to defend himself or herself before being convicted and sentenced. We, as Americans, have always shown a greater respect for human life than most. Especially the respect to EPWs and the like. We also have a Constitution that, while pesky, is still operative. Choosing to ignore the Constitution because of the inconvenience and difficulties it causes is an affront to rule of law. That's my problem. I hold "due process" to be greater than my subjective feelings about something. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
winsor 186 #53 October 4, 2011 At the outset of hostilities in Europe some time back, a stick of bombs was released on the wrong target in Guernica, hitting a market square, and a failed recall order resulted in another stick of bombs being dropped on a margarine factory in Rotterdam. Both of these incidents were not scripted, and caused relatively little damage in the grand scheme of things, but were treated as the acts of evil at the hands of monsters in the propaganda generated in response. Fast forward a few short years. Dresden, a city of trivial military value whose numbers were swollen by the influx of refugees, was flattened by combined efforts of the RAF and the USAAF as an object lesson. We did it because we could. Curtis W. LeMay made great strides in his stated intent to "reduce the Japanese population by half," BEFORE the use of nukes. Then you have the use of nukes on population centers, ostensibly for "shock and awe" purposes (though the popular versions claim that it worked, detailed analyses refute this supposition). The point to all this is that, for all our outrage at actions when taken against us, we are happy to engage in behavior every bit as bad if it suits us. We villified the KGB for their "wet work," killing "rogue" dissidents on foreign soil, but claim justification when we do the same damned thing. Don't get me wrong, I am quite pleased that various people who have declared jihad against us have been given the opportunity to see the quality of virgins that await them in paradise, but I am uneasy with the process by which this has taken place. Operation Phoenix was the brainchild of some bright-eyed deep-thinker, where villagers would finger "VC" and special ops types would sneak in and kill them. It turned out that most villagers were not stupid enough to alienate actual VC, but were happy to use the opportunity to resolve long standing feuds, obtain land, eliminate romantic rivals and so forth. I am concerned that our zeal in eliminating people who piss us off will again be harnessed by people whose agenda do not resemble ours even slightly. Our system of checks and balances is massively flawed. It is, however, a vast improvement on any system lacking checks and balances. At any rate, while I approve of these people being removed from the rolls of the living, I am very concerned with the approach taken to do so. Every time this kind of policy has been utilized by a government in the past the results have been the same, and I have a sneaking suspicion that it will prove to be the case this time as well. If we want the moral high ground, we have to follow the rules. If we do not, we have no right to bitch. You can't have it both ways. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #54 October 4, 2011 QuoteAs I mentioned previously, extradition is something to look for. But one way or another give him due process. Don’t just execute him. That’s what I’m talking about, and why the OBL issue is better for me. I’ve mentioned the issue with sovereignty. Had another country done that to the US we’d consider it an Act of War. I simply operate under the idea that the Constitution (which I have on multiple occasions sworn to defend and uphold) is important. If an exception to Constitutional rights is carved out for “terrorists” then it should be done by Amendment and not by fiat. I guess it comes down to what you require to satisfy the due process requirement. I don't think you can argue with a straight face that Al Alaqui didn't know he was wanted dead or alive. If we notify someone they are wanted, they flee to a non-extradition country, and proceed to wage war against our country, it don't think it is unreasonable to act to stop that person. If your beef is with the process by which the person is declared wanted, I can agree with you to some degree. I think judicial oversight of the wanted list is appropriate. If you are saying that going to a non-extradition country is like touching "base" in a game of tag, I can't agree with that. QuoteI’m limiting this to the due process argument. I’m a supporter of capital punishment – after trial. I’m a supporter of military action. I’m not, however, one who believes that ends justify means. I believe that the single greatest limit to government power is due process of law. That means not taking a person’s property, livelihood, right to defend himself, freedom or life without FIRST giving that person notice of what the government intends to do and the opportunity to defend yourself. Again, I agree with you. I just think that in this case it is hard to argue that Al Alaqui wasn't given notice of our intent. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #55 October 4, 2011 I see your point. And as we all know, Congress would never pass a law or resolution that would violate the Constitution. And we all know what a marvelous treatment of civil liberties that the Patriot Act has given us. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #56 October 4, 2011 Winsor continues with his well-established pattern of eloquent posts that hit the nail on the head. I think you and I agree on most things. We've probably got about a ten percent disagreement. Quote don't think you can argue with a straight face that Al Alaqui didn't know he was wanted dead or alive. I get that. But let's look at you. Let's say that you found out that you were wanted dead or alive by the US Government. In fact, you know that there's been a kill order signed with your name on it - come across an American law enforcement agent (or military member) and you will likely be shot on sight. Confidence in due process would be low. Receiving notice that you are to be killed is not "notice" in the due process sense. "Notice" means being told what the charge is and what the prospective penalty is and giving you a chance to avoid that penalty by trial via neutral arbiter of fact. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #57 October 4, 2011 QuoteI get that. But let's look at you. Let's say that you found out that you were wanted dead or alive by the US Government. In fact, you know that there's been a kill order signed with your name on it - come across an American law enforcement agent (or military member) and you will likely be shot on sight. Confidence in due process would be low. Receiving notice that you are to be killed is not "notice" in the due process sense. "Notice" means being told what the charge is and what the prospective penalty is and giving you a chance to avoid that penalty by trial via neutral arbiter of fact. I think you're right about our level of agreement. I'm a strong believer in the Constitution and due process. I think our difference lies in what is a reasonable process to deal with people who are outside of our control, yet pose a significant threat. If I were living in Yemen specifically to put myself beyond the reach of US law enforcement or military personel, and I received notice (we can quibble about what level of notice is sufficient, but I doubt the Yemeni Post Office does certified mail) that I was wanted dead or alive, I'm sure I could find a way to communicate my desire to surrender. Al Alaqui, as head of communications for Al Queda, could have easily arranged surrender if he wanted to defend himself in court. He chose not to. Now, if you're arguing that a terrorist might not surrender because they don't believe they would receive a fair trial, I can agree with you. I'm a strong believer that the prisoners in Gitmo, even the super scary ones, should be brought to the US and stand up for civilian criminal trials. Not doing so delegitimizes our legal system, and is an insult to American ideals. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #58 October 4, 2011 I voted "Hell Yes!" They targeted and killed more than 3K people on 9-11, so yeah go for it.-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #59 October 4, 2011 It's an awesome thing - being able to agree to disagree. Your comments are certainly thought provoking. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #60 October 4, 2011 Hmm. This isn't right. Mutual respect and polite discourse in SC. What can we do about that? Um, you're a Nazi! There, that's more like it. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #61 October 4, 2011 QuoteI’m limiting this to the due process argument. I’m a supporter of capital punishment – after trial. I’m a supporter of military action. I’m not, however, one who believes that ends justify means. I believe that the single greatest limit to government power is due process of law. That means not taking a person’s property, livelihood, right to defend himself, freedom or life without FIRST giving that person notice of what the government intends to do and the opportunity to defend yourself. Do you feel that way about all of our enemies in the "war on terror" (we should arrest them rather than kill them)? Or just this one? Because I'm not sure what process the enemy is due, other than maybe swift and humane where possible. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #62 October 4, 2011 QuoteI voted "Hell Yes!" They targeted and killed more than 3K people on 9-11, so yeah go for it. Right on. THEY declared war on us. In my view, if an American decided they were going to join the terrorists and actively plot to attack us, then fuck 'em. We'll treat the sorry motherfuckers as war combatants. Capture or kill."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 93 #63 October 4, 2011 Quotethe prisoners in Gitmo, even the super scary ones, should be brought to the US and stand up for civilian criminal trials. They aren't accused of committing civilian crimes. They are accused of waging war against us. There is a huge distinction between criminal murder and an act of war. The response is of course different. Very ordinary acts of war on both sides. None of this should be a surprise. I am encouraged to see that some (mostly liberals) want to complain about it.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 93 #64 October 4, 2011 QuoteDo you feel that way about all of our enemies in the "war on terror" (we should arrest them rather than kill them)? Or just this one? Because I'm not sure what process the enemy is due, other than maybe swift and humane where possible. It used to be customary to identify yourself as a soldier. Now that isn't so common, but where that label is clearly the case, then they should be attacked as if we are in a war, which we are. It used to be that being in a state of war meant that it really was awful, and the soldiers expected to be targeted - to be killed whenever their adversary could. The fact that attempts are made to make acts of war have little to no loss of life, that wars are no longer such hell has contributed to them lasting longer.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #65 October 4, 2011 QuoteThey aren't accused of committing civilian crimes. Actually, they are. And they should be. By declaring that every jerkoff terrorist group is at war with the US just elevates their status. If we can capture them, like we have with everyone at Gitmo, we should try them like the dirtbag criminals they are. Affording them special status as enemy combatants gives them and their cause undeserved legitimacy. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #66 October 4, 2011 QuoteThe fact that attempts are made to make acts of war have little to no loss of life, that wars are no longer such hell has contributed to them lasting longer. One could almost read that as being in favor of civilian casualties. Being at war with an emotion, such as terror, is not the same as being at war with another nation state. The lines get blurry, which is why we're having this discussion. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #67 October 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteThey aren't accused of committing civilian crimes. Actually, they are. And they should be. By declaring that every jerkoff terrorist group is at war with the US just elevates their status. If we can capture them, like we have with everyone at Gitmo, we should try them like the dirtbag criminals they are. Affording them special status as enemy combatants gives them and their cause undeserved legitimacy. Actually, trying them in civilian court instead of holding them as prisoners of war is what gives them and their cause undeserved legitimacy.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #68 October 4, 2011 QuoteActually, trying them in civilian court instead of holding them as prisoners of war is what gives them and their cause undeserved legitimacy. I disagree. Claiming they are so dangerous and scary that the must be held on a remote island outpost, and freaking out at the suggestion that they be transfered to the US, gives them way more credit that they are due. The prisoners in Gitmo are just men, not X-Men. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #69 October 4, 2011 Correct.... Trying them in US civilian court fully grants terrorist all US Constitutional guarantees. Which is ridiculous. The Lockerby bomber committed no acts of terror on US soil. Zero. Yet he killed over two hundred American citizens. "There is no reason for him to be charged in a US court." Think that bullscat over. Terrs are enemy combatants on a global battlefield. When they are found they should be eliminated. More drones, with bigger Hellfire missiles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #70 October 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteActually, trying them in civilian court instead of holding them as prisoners of war is what gives them and their cause undeserved legitimacy. I disagree. Claiming they are so dangerous and scary that the must be held on a remote island outpost, and freaking out at the suggestion that they be transfered to the US, gives them way more credit that they are due. The prisoners in Gitmo are just men, not X-Men. I never claimed they were - care to rejoin the actual conversation?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #71 October 4, 2011 QuoteI never claimed they were - care to rejoin the actual conversation? Can you stop being such a pedant for one thread? I never said *you* claimed they were anything. Many of the people objecting to bringing the detainees to the US objected because it was too dangerous. "Many of the people objecting" apparently does not include mnealtx. And if you bothered to read the thread, I was having a thoughtful, polite, and interesting discussion with lawrocket and others until you showed up and had to get snotty, as usual. This thread is likely now dead. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bertt 0 #72 October 4, 2011 I'm pretty sure Osama and his Al Qaeda buddies declared war on all Americans, military and civilian. I guess I could sum this up by having a bumper sticker printed that says, "My war criminal killed your war criminal".You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #73 October 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteThey aren't accused of committing civilian crimes. Actually, they are. And they should be. By declaring that every jerkoff terrorist group is at war with the US just elevates their status. If we can capture them, like we have with everyone at Gitmo, we should try them like the dirtbag criminals they are. Affording them special status as enemy combatants gives them and their cause undeserved legitimacy. On what basis would you propose to limit the actions of non-Americans on foreign soil? A Saudi plotting against us in Yemen isn't really subject to any laws we could draft. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #74 October 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteI never claimed they were - care to rejoin the actual conversation? Can you stop being such a pedant for one thread? Can you stop creating strawmen for one thread? QuoteI never said *you* claimed they were anything. Many of the people objecting to bringing the detainees to the US objected because it was too dangerous. "Many of the people objecting" apparently does not include mnealtx. Doesn't seem to include anyone posting in the thread, either, so why bring it up as a counter-argument? QuoteAnd if you bothered to read the thread, I was having a thoughtful, polite, and interesting discussion with lawrocket and others until you showed up and had to get snotty, as usual. This thread is likely now dead. Actually, the snottiness is all yours. I made a polite response to both of your posts.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #75 October 4, 2011 QuoteDo you feel that way about all of our enemies in the "war on terror" (we should arrest them rather than kill them)? I don't "feel" that way, Dave. My feeling is that every person who plans to deliberately attack a civilian population should be staked down and left for the fucking crows. That's my feeling. My thinking, however, overcomes it. I think that every effort should be made to bring a person in alive. That the person, as a prisoner, should be cared for and afforded the opportunity to defend himself or herself before being convicted and sentenced. We, as Americans, have always shown a greater respect for human life than most. Especially the respect to EPWs and the like. We also have a Constitution that, while pesky, is still operative. Choosing to ignore the Constitution because of the inconvenience and difficulties it causes is an affront to rule of law. That's my problem. I hold "due process" to be greater than my subjective feelings about something. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
