NationStates Jolt Archive

The government can invalidate a visa any time it wants to. This however was not the case, the claim made on this forum was that the visa was invalid from the start, due to the fact that he lied on an application. While the government could simply void his visa at any point, which would then project forwards to invalidate a visa they must present evidents of the "lie" that would invalidate it.

Sure, DHS could just kill the visa at any time, but to state that it was invalid from the start must have some presentation of fact in that case.
I'm saying that we don't know that those proceedings didn't take place. The FBI may have gone through those motions.

Oh... I see...
You made a claim that there was no "evidence." If you were to take the time to read that you'd see that there are mountains of HARD evidence. Not hearsay, not supositions, but hard evidence tying him to a conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism.

The problem with your logic is that a cease-fire has been declared by the UN on this war and only the UN can declare a breack of the cease-fire and a resuming of hostilities. Has the UN done so?

According to the UN, this might be true. However, the US (as with every other country on this planet) is a sovereign nation. The US has never sworn obedience to the UN. There are agreements in place to honor UN conventions, but the US is free to break those agreements if the UN conventions interfere with internal decisions.

The UN is, of course, then free to pursue whatever actions they normally take against erring members. But until we're all singing Heil UN, our laws still stand within the borders of our own country. Including laws regarding wars, declaring and ceasing.

According to the UN, this might be true. However, the US (as with every other country on this planet) is a sovereign nation. The US has never sworn obedience to the UN. There are agreements in place to honor UN conventions, but the US is free to break those agreements if the UN conventions interfere with internal decisions.

The UN is, of course, then free to pursue whatever actions they normally take against erring members. But until we're all singing Heil UN, our laws still stand within the borders of our own country. Including laws regarding wars, declaring and ceasing.
Ummmm...

Even though we are agreeing with the designation of the guy in question here, didn't the US and Iraq sit down at a table in a tent where Iraq signed a surrender? I thought that ended hostilities. I know that there are questions about Iraq's compliance with the cease fire, but that wasn't the case at the time of the September 11 attacks so at that point there was a cease fire agreement that was still in force. This guy is chrged with a crime involving the attacks of 9/11 and we had a cease fire with Iraq at the time.

I think this guy's designation as an enemy combatant has more to do with the direct evidence linking him to senior Al Qeada officials, his crimes while he was here, his subterfuge with regards to the FBI questioning and the messages found on his computer hinting at his intentions in regards to chemical weapons and the maps of US waterways, roads and other infrastructure. I don't think his enemy combatant designation has anything to do with raq.

According to the UN, this might be true. However, the US (as with every other country on this planet) is a sovereign nation. The US has never sworn obedience to the UN. There are agreements in place to honor UN conventions, but the US is free to break those agreements if the UN conventions interfere with internal decisions.

The UN is, of course, then free to pursue whatever actions they normally take against erring members. But until we're all singing Heil UN, our laws still stand within the borders of our own country. Including laws regarding wars, declaring and ceasing.
Learn about international law.

The laws regarding prisoners of war do not work that way. You might as well say that when you catch an enemy combatant firing at your troops that you should put him on criminal trial first in order to establish that he was, in fact, firing on your troops. No country in the world would do that.

This guy lied on his Visa application. He said he had only been here once before in 1990. He was here in 2000. That' not based on hearsay, it's based on phone, bank and hotel records as well as testimony from hotel employees.

Both prior to and after the attacks of 9/11 he called, from his phone and using his calling card and PIN number, the Al Qeada operative responsible for funding the 9/11 attacks. Again, this is not hearsay, it's phone records. He also had direct financial contact through some of the bogus bank accounts he set up.

Hundreds of credit card numbers, many of which were valid, were found on his computer and on reciepts in his apartment. None of them were registered to him. Many had been used to funnel money to "AAA Carpets" - a company that never existed and whoes address was the same address as the hotel he stayed at in 2000. This again is backed up by hard evidence, not hearsay.

On his computer were found sermons from Bin Laden as well as personal writings that, without retyping them here, clearly show his political/religious affiliation. Again, not hearsay but hard evidence.

On his computer were found links to websites that had detailed instructions on how to make chemical weapons as well as ways to obtain the chemicals necessary to make them. Not hearsay, hard evidence

As far as I'm concerned, this is the same as walking in on a sniper about to blast some of your troops except it's worse because his target probably had more to do with a sporting event or shopping mall than with any military target. You don't put prisoners of war on trial, you take them prisoner. In most cases that's end of story. In this case, I agree. The governments power to do that should be checked, and it is being checked. There is curently a court case that is affording this guy the right to refute the allegations and the evidence. He has taxpayer funded lawyers helping him do just that. You guys keep acting as though there is no judicial process in this case, but there clearly is or we wouldn't be talking about some JUDGES ruling. If he can show that the evidence is not strong enough to support the enemy combatant designation he will get his criminal trial. He might want to actually do that, though. So far he has refused.

It also bears note that both Jose Padilla and Moussaui were able to get there designation as enemy combatants removed. If this guy shows any kind of meaningfull effort to refute the claims of the government his probabbly will, too.

Supposing all that to be true (which I have no reason to believe it isn't), it still doesn't follow that we cannot afford him basic constitutional protections such as the right to a speedy and impartial trial. It does not explain why he has been held in legal limbo for three years. Indeed, if in fact the evidence is as strong as you claim, then this would be an ideal time to put him in criminal or military court.

Supposing all that to be true (which I have no reason to believe it isn't), it still doesn't follow that we cannot afford him basic constitutional protections such as the right to a speedy and impartial trial. It does not explain why he has been held in legal limbo for three years. Indeed, if in fact the evidence is as strong as you claim, then this would be an ideal time to put him in criminal or military court.
he iswn't in legal limbo. There's a court case going on as we speak questioning teh government's right to classidy him as an enemy combatant.

Jesus, I could say the same about your age....:rolleyes:
With an initial post-response like the one you gave, it'd be easy to peg you as living in the single-digit range. I think Nazz frankly did you a big favour by assuming you to be a teen.

You made a claim that there was no "evidence." If you were to take the time to read that you'd see that there are mountains of HARD evidence. Not hearsay, not supositions, but hard evidence tying him to a conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism.

So why hasn't there been a trial hmmm? Could it be that this "evidence" is not as hard as you claim it to be?

If it is as airtight as you say as it is, why, no court would allow him to walk. So why no trial?

he iswn't in legal limbo. There's a court case going on as we speak questioning teh government's right to classidy him as an enemy combatant.That is action brought by him against the government, not vise versa. Typically in this country the government must bring action to imprison you, having to bring action against the government because they have imprisoned you without any legal proceedings is ass backwards. Unfortunately it was neccesary because... well... he was in legal limbo!

You made a claim that there was no "evidence." If you were to take the time to read that you'd see that there are mountains of HARD evidence. Not hearsay, not supositions, but hard evidence tying him to a conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism.

That's all fine and dandy. But whether he's a terrorist or not is not up for debate. What's far more cause for concern is the fact that he's been rotting. I don't care if he is a terrorist; hell, if that evidence is true, he likely is. So try him.

Or from the alternative point of view. If he was a terrorist and was responsible for immense amounts of deaths, wouldn't you rather see him on trial for murder and risking a likely death sentence as swiftly as possible?

Oh, and Atlantian. Judging from your initial posts and those unbelievably racist comments of yours, you're the most xenophobic person I've met in ages, no offense meant to Xenophobialand, and if you maintain that callous disregard for others' feelings - joking or otherwise, as the Arabic culture is not there for your stand-up hour - you will not get very far in life, and will likely be arrested by the end of the decade.

And I'd count myself lucky to be a member of that particular jury.

SNIP
we prefer the rule of law. its not a unique idea but we are still quite fond of it.

Oh, go an wallow in your sense of self-righteousness, if it pleases you.

For all practical intents and purposes, the law means whatever the shrub and his cronies say it means.

I don't put that much credit on the whole thing.

It's the thing about War - you are unlikely to get what you want.

That's all fine and dandy. But whether he's a terrorist or not is not up for debate. What's far more cause for concern is the fact that he's been rotting. I don't care if he is a terrorist; hell, if that evidence is true, he likely is. So try him.

Or from the alternative point of view. If he was a terrorist and was responsible for immense amounts of deaths, wouldn't you rather see him on trial for murder and risking a likely death sentence as swiftly as possible?

Oh, and Atlantian. Judging from your initial posts and those unbelievably racist comments of yours, you're the most xenophobic person I've met in ages, no offense meant to Xenophobialand, and if you maintain that callous disregard for others' feelings - joking or otherwise, as the Arabic culture is not there for your stand-up hour - you will not get very far in life, and will likely be arrested by the end of the decade.

And I'd count myself lucky to be a member of that particular jury.

Oh, grow up.

*scratches stubbly chin*

I'd rather think the idea here is to eliminate a danger.
Has owt do with justice, and all with self-preservation.

So it's a matter for Might, not for Justice.

So it's a matter for Might, not for Justice.

So if I'm your neighbor and I've got an artillery piece, I can blow you to kingdom come if you so much as look at me and the law shouldn't touch me? Might after all, makes right.

So if I'm your neighbor and I've got an artillery piece, I can blow you to kingdom come if you so much as look at me and the law shouldn't touch me? Might after all, makes right.

Did I mention right? Your views, not mine.

See, it's a whole new ball game, and the name of the game is Survival.
Survival has got owt to do with right.
Eat, or be eaten.

Did I mention right? Your views, not mine.

See, it's a whole new ball game, and the name of the game is Survival.
Survival has got owt to do with right.
Eat, or be eaten.

Alright! Carte blanche it is!

*fires BogMarsh seeking missile*

Alright! Carte blanche it is!

*fires BogMarsh seeking missile*

*appeals to Hans Blix*

Coincidentally, Hans was right last time too.

bump

bump
Why?