Sidestepping the consitution.

Gato_Solo said:
There was no law covering that situation. They weren't civilian and, thanks to the Supreme Court, they weren't military, either. That bill you are stridently objecting to came directly out of that circumstance. Hell...even the Geneva Convention doesn't cover this situation, and that is the basis for all 'lawful' armed combat. The closest thing in the GC that covers this is under 'unlawful combatants', and unlawful combatants can be shot out-of-hand with no trial at all.
Click to expand...


well with this bill it's the same thing.
 
paul_valaru said:
well with this bill it's the same thing.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. The people this is directed against rely on your compassion to wreak havoc on our society. Look at Israel and Hezbollah right now, and explain to me how the world is fair when Israel is lambasted in the press and Hezbollah gets a free pass. This is the same thing.
 
Repeat after Grotto (folks this is real easy).

Gato_Solo said:
The closest thing in the GC that covers this is under 'unlawful combatants', and unlawful combatants can be shot out-of-hand with no trial at all.
Click to expand...
 
Gato_Solo said:
No, it isn't. The people this is directed against rely on your compassion to wreak havoc on our society. Look at Israel and Hezbollah right now, and explain to me how the world is fair when Israel is lambasted in the press and Hezbollah gets a free pass. This is the same thing.
Click to expand...

shooting someone in the act of a crime is one thing, putting someone on mock trail is something else. afganistan was bombed, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with a bill that has an end result of if your accused of something, you cannot defend yourself.

Person A gives money to charity B who funnels it to a terrorist organization C

Person A has no idea it is going to C yet is arrested, and never heard from again.
 
Gato_Solo said:
The closest thing in the GC that covers this is under 'unlawful combatants', and unlawful combatants can be shot out-of-hand with no trial at all.
Click to expand...

combatants is a key word there, how many where caught holding guns and shooting, most are detained under suspicion of conspiricy.
 
Gato_Solo said:
No, it isn't. The people this is directed against rely on your compassion to wreak havoc on our society. Look at Israel and Hezbollah right now, and explain to me how the world is fair when Israel is lambasted in the press and Hezbollah gets a free pass. This is the same thing.
Click to expand...

The people pushing this count on your fear in order to get you to give up the freedoms.

Mongering for an orwellian future.:toast:
 
paul_valaru said:
combatants is a key word there, how many where caught holding guns and shooting, most are detained under suspicion of conspiricy.
Click to expand...

Since when is suspicion not enough reason to prevent someone from defending themselves in court, tried in absentia, and not told what they were suspected of?

Suspects are guilty by definition.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Since the Supreme court said we couldn't use military tribunals to try terrorists, and the Geneva convention doesn't cover them, either, the laws governing terrorists must be created.
Click to expand...

Precisley, we have a winner. The Supreme Court told the administration that Congress needs to act before the administration could allow, or order, military tribunals.

Citizens & foreign nationals are covered by the Constitution. These folks are expressly ignored by the Geneva Convention. No uniform. No rank. Out of their State.

Burn e'm.
 
Aw c'mon Gonz isn't Grotto bang on?

Do we have to wade through the GC to find the part

THAT DOES INDEED COVER THESE GUYS???

that may be the crux of the issue

we don't have the balls to deal with them
as put forth in the GC?
 
spike said:
Is there a provision limiting this to people out of their state?
Click to expand...

One may take up arms in defense of thier life/family/land/state. However, a Syrian terrorist fighitng in Baghdad is just a terrorist.
 
Sooooo....Yes, there is a provision limiting this to people out of their state?

If so can we still use it on tourists in the US?
 
Winky said:
Aw c'mon Gonz isn't Grotto bang on?

Do we have to wade through the GC to find the part

THAT DOES INDEED COVER THESE GUYS???

that may be the crux of the issue

we don't have the balls to deal with them
as put forth in the GC?
Click to expand...


I agree.

If it says shoot them, then shoot them.

Israel did it after the munich massacre.

Better that than a bill that can be twisted to be used on citizens and forgein nationals. the article said

accused of joining or associating with terrorist groups engaged in anti-U.S. hostilities, and of committing or aiding hostile acts by such groups, whether or not they are part of al-Qaeda, two U.S. officials said.
Click to expand...

does not mention anything about not being citizens or forgein nationals. Now of course we can't know until the contents of the bill are published.

Means that american al-quaeda member could be "tried" under this bill if it passes.
 
Well Paul you win.

Someone who is clearly planning the mass murder
of American citizens during time of war should be
afforded the full protection of the United States Constitution no matter what...

We should surrender now and save ourselves
all this trouble.
 
Winky said:
Well Paul you win.

Someone who is clearly planning the mass murder
of American citizens during time of war should be
afforded the full protection of the United States Constitution no matter what...

We should surrender now and save ourselves
all this trouble.
Click to expand...


so...timothy mcvay should not have had constitutional rights?

what about spree killers during the veitnam war? or WWII since you specified at the time of war.

Sure, it's like all those pesky things, pedophile gets off do to miranda violation. Evidence unadmissable do to the fact it was aquired illegally.

But it's a live by the sword die by the sword thing, you can't have all these rights, then discard them when they get in the way. You want your soldiers who are captured held under the geneva convention rules, you gotta treat your POWs under the geneva convention rules. You want to have trials for these people then have TRIALS not mockeries.

If they are terrorist scum, take them out back and shoot them, but at least have the balls to say that is what you are doing, instead of hiding behind these fake trials this bill proposes.

If you have the convitions that you are the home of the brave, a shining light of human rights and democracy, put your money were your mouth is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top