NationStates Jolt Archive

He was held in the US; but denied rights.

It's a start.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/DOJ/story?id=6966046&page=1

Waits for the President is soft on terrorism comments......

well.....good.

would it be wrong of me to mention that this is the kind of change i was hoping for?

would it be wrong of me to mention that this is the kind of change i was hoping for?

No, it means you're a human being.

No, it means you're a human being.
Will that remain legal under Obama?

Maybe I'm just really naive but I think they should at least charge them with something if they are going to hold them, be it civilian or terrorist or both.....

Where's the CHANGE Obama???

Oh....there it is. Carry on then.

When did we start giving POWs trials?

We didn't give redcoats trials, we didn't give Mexican soldiers trials, we didn't give the Confederates trials, we didn't give the Spanish trials, we didn't give the Germans trials, we didn't give the Japanese trials, we didn't give the Koreans trials, we didn't give the vietnamese trials, ect, ect.*

Why should Jihad Johnny be different.

*And I am refering to the run of the mill soldiers, not war criminals.

When did we start giving POWs trials?

Usually when we detain people for acts not committed in time of war.

We didn't give redcoats trials

ummm... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre#Trial_of_the_soldiers)

we didn't give the Germans trials

ummm... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials)

When did we start giving POWs trials?

We didn't give redcoats trials, we didn't give Mexican soldiers trials, we didn't give the Confederates trials, we didn't give the Spanish trials, we didn't give the Germans trials, we didn't give the Japanese trials, we didn't give the Koreans trials, we didn't give the vietnamese trials, ect, ect.*

Why should Jihad Johnny be different.

*And I am refering to the run of the mill soldiers, not war criminals.
in this case, the guy isnt a POW. he was picked up in the US while he was here on a legitmate visa.

maybe he is guilty of conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism on US soil, maybe he isnt. that is now for the courts to decide.

(...) we didn't give the Germans trials, we didn't give the Japanese trials (...)

Why should Jihad Johnny be different.

*And I am refering to the run of the mill soldiers, not war criminals.

1- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials

2- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention

3- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Constitution

I don't need to make any motion against you.

Trials. About damn time. Lets see if the Obama administration can produce fair jury trials for these guys and thus do ONE THING with which I can agree.

Also, fine, treat him like a PoW. The problem though, with that is, POWs are held not because they committed any CRIME, but because they were captured in the theater of war. They're kept confined to deny the enemy force the resource of having them. We don't consider POWs criminals, just opposition.

So, if you want to treat him like a POW, treat him like a POW. Only, the thing about that, is that means, if you're going to do that, you have to follow the rules of how we treat POWs. So, yeah, ok, he's a POW. You want to deal with the consequence of what that entails? Because, the thing about POWs is, when the war is over....we have to let them go.

Also, fine, treat him like a PoW. The problem though, with that is, POWs are held not because they committed any CRIME, but because they were captured in the theater of war. They're kept confined to deny the enemy force the resource of having them. We don't consider POWs criminals, just opposition.

So, if you want to treat him like a POW, treat him like a POW. Only, the thing about that, is that means, if you're going to do that, you have to follow the rules of how we treat POWs. And one of the rules we have for POWs is, when the war is over....we have to let them go.

Remember, though, Neo, that the War on a Noun is precisely an attempt to KEEP the war going, forever.

I can think of one state that attempted and succeeded in starting a perpetual war.

Oceania.

1- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials

2- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention

3- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Constitution

I don't need to make any motion against you.

I was talking about your average soldiers, not high level commanders.

And I see nothing in the Geneva convention about a PoW's right to a trial.

Also, fine, treat him like a PoW. The problem though, with that is, POWs are held not because they committed any CRIME, but because they were captured in the theater of war. They're kept confined to deny the enemy force the resource of having them. We don't consider POWs criminals, just opposition.

So, if you want to treat him like a POW, treat him like a POW. Only, the thing about that, is that means, if you're going to do that, you have to follow the rules of how we treat POWs. So, yeah, ok, he's a POW. You want to deal with the consequence of what that entails? Because, the thing about POWs is, when the war is over....we have to let them go.

And we should let him go, when we have reduced which every terror group he is a member of, to a pile of corpses.

I was talking about your average soldiers, not high level commanders.
He is not a "soldier" of any rank.

I was talking about your average soldiers, not high level commanders.

And I see nothing in the Geneva convention about a PoW's right to a trial.



And we should let him go, when we have reduced which every terror group he is a member of, to a pile of corpses.

1- Soldiers were tried in Nuremberg.

2- Al Qaeda is not a country. In case you didn't know.

3- How do you prove he's a member of said groups without a trial?

And we should let him go, when we have reduced which every terror group he is a member of, to a pile of corpses.
no no we should not.

if he was a 9/11 conspirator he should face the death penalty. if he wasnt he should be let go with a bit of an apology.

no no we should not.

if he was a 9/11 conspirator he should face the death penalty. if he wasnt he should be let go with a bit of an apology.

And bundles of money.

Zomg, Obama is being soft on terrorism by not executing a could-be terrorist without silly things like 'Trials'! :mad:

well.....good.

It's become apparent that all of the combantants were questioned without being advised of their Miranda rights.

Apparently, that, more than any allegations (or admissions) of torture, is going to make these cases open and shut for the most part - shut, mostly.

It's become apparent that all of the combantants...
We are not discussing any "combatants" here (let alone "combantants").

It's become apparent that all of the combantants were questioned without being advised of their Miranda rights.

Apparently, that, more than any allegations (or admissions) of torture, is going to make these cases open and shut for the most part - shut, mostly.

:rolleyes:

Surely it couldn't be the case that not charging people with a crime before holding them for YEARS was an issue. No, no, this is just like not reading someone Miranda rights.

What's your point, Kimchi?

:rolleyes:

Surely it couldn't be the case that not charging people with a crime before holding them for YEARS was an issue. No, no, this is just like not reading someone Miranda rights.

What's your point, Kimchi?

That's not going to affect the trial. The word down at JAG (which is located in Ballston, Va) is that almost all of the combatants will walk after their defense raises the Miranda issue. Including people who blew up the USS Cole, and including Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

That's not going to affect the trial. The word down at JAG (which is located in Ballston, Va) is that almost all of the combatants will walk after their defense raises the Miranda issue. Including people who blew up the USS Cole, and including Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

So?

almost all of the combatants will walk
None of the COMBATANTS will walk. We are not talking here about those captured in combat.

When did we start giving POWs trials?
He's not a POW.

1- Soldiers were tried in Nuremberg.


Side point, but the Nuremberg trials weren't exactly wonderful examples of fair and open justice.

Because, the thing about POWs is, when the war is over....we have to let them go.

Exactly..... but when is the war 'over'...? That's the problem with the "War on Terror".

I'm reminded of the part in Silverado(which is a great movie, if you've not seen it)where the sheriff, played by Brian Dennehy, tells Danny Glover, 'We're going to give you a fair trial, followed by a first-class hanging.'

He was held in the US; but denied rights.

It's a start.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/DOJ/story?id=6966046&page=1

Waits for the President is soft on terrorism comments......

what no water boarding in Cuba!??!! the president is soft on terrorism!!!

I'd laugh if you end up killing him :tongue: