An open question...

[DamnYankee]

So what due process has occured that determined:

1) That that Droopy Drawers tried to blow up a passenger aircraft.
2) What is established to say this is an act of war, or is it just because you say so.
3) What seperates him from the guys in Miami who tried to bring down an aircraft in the name of Al QUeda a few years ago?

Again, Flaming Balls is accused of committing an act of war so should be tried accordingly. If he was J walking and waving a Koran over his head it would be treated as a simple civil matter. You'll have to be more specific on the Miami event, perhaps provide a link.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You clearly do not understand the presumption of innocence. It is not about what I think, its about how the individual is treated in the eyes of the Government.

lol...yet you hypocritically asked that question to SM

and moron, it is not the government, the government already believes he or she is guilty, the presumption of innocence is for the trier of fact

 

[Jarod]

Again, Flaming Balls is accused of committing an act of war so should be tried accordingly. If he was J walking and waving a Koran over his head it would be treated as a simple civil matter. You'll have to be more specific on the Miami event, perhaps provide a link.

Ill get you a link, but I have to say...

Taking someone's civil rights away by merely charging someone with an act of war is a terrable precident to set.

So, if the Government did not like you for some reason and wanted to take away your civil rights... You would be okay with it being legal for them to do it simply by CHARGING you with an act of war?

You want to take away Droopy Drawers civil rights based only on what he is charged with.... Not what he has been found guilty of!

 

[Jarod]

Link on Miami deal...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13491653/

 

[DamnYankee]

Ill get you a link, but I have to say...

Taking someone's civil rights away by merely charging someone with an act of war is a terrable precident to set.

So, if the Government did not like you for some reason and wanted to take away your civil rights... You would be okay with it being legal for them to do it simply by CHARGING you with an act of war?

You want to take away Droopy Drawers civil rights based only on what he is charged with.... Not what he has been found guilty of!

You seem to be grasping here, citing some potential false accusations that would require a government conspiracy. Let's stick to facts instead.

With regards to the Miami thing, the incident was stopped by the Bush era FBI during its early stages' and therefore would have to be treated more as a civil matter. In this case, however, the Obama government totally missed this guy and his plot wasn't uncovered until he actually performed the act. Perhaps if Obama was more serious about prosecuting the WOT then more terrorists would be stopped during their planning and then could be tried as you would prefer.

 

[Jarod]

You seem to be grasping here, citing some potential false accusations that would require a government conspiracy. Let's stick to facts instead.

With regards to the Miami thing, the incident was stopped by the Bush era FBI during its early stages' and therefore would have to be treated more as a civil matter. In this case, however, the Obama government totally missed this guy and his plot wasn't uncovered until he actually performed the act. Perhaps if Obama was more serious about prosecuting the WOT then more terrorists would be stopped during their planning and then could be tried as you would prefer.

It was not treated as a civil matter it was prosecuted in criminal court.

 

[DamnYankee]

It was not treated as a civil matter it was prosecuted in criminal court.

That is of course what I meant; it wasn't tried as a military matter because Bush's FBI was able to uncover the plot in its early stages instead of what happened during the Obama Administration, having private citizens have to deal with the matter while flying on a civilian airliner.

 

[Jarod]

You seem to be grasping here, citing some potential false accusations that would require a government conspiracy. Let's stick to facts instead.

With regards to the Miami thing, the incident was stopped by the Bush era FBI during its early stages' and therefore would have to be treated more as a civil matter. In this case, however, the Obama government totally missed this guy and his plot wasn't uncovered until he actually performed the act. Perhaps if Obama was more serious about prosecuting the WOT then more terrorists would be stopped during their planning and then could be tried as you would prefer.

IM not grasping, I am pointing out that suspending someone's civil rights based on a charge is a slippery sloap. If they can do it for this guy they can do it to you!

 

[Jarod]

You seem to be grasping here, citing some potential false accusations that would require a government conspiracy. Let's stick to facts instead.

With regards to the Miami thing, the incident was stopped by the Bush era FBI during its early stages' and therefore would have to be treated more as a civil matter. In this case, however, the Obama government totally missed this guy and his plot wasn't uncovered until he actually performed the act. Perhaps if Obama was more serious about prosecuting the WOT then more terrorists would be stopped during their planning and then could be tried as you would prefer.

Why would the stage of development of the plot affect how they are charged and weather they get civil rights or not?

 

[DamnYankee]

Why would the stage of development of the plot affect how they are charged and weather they get civil rights or not?

Because during the early stages they have not yet committed an act of war. Duh.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Because during the early stages they have not yet committed an act of war. Duh.

couldn't you classify that as conspiracy to commit an act of war?

 

[DamnYankee]

couldn't you classify that as conspiracy to commit an act of war?

Perhaps, but that might take some findings by a civil court first.

 

[Jarod]

Because during the early stages they have not yet committed an act of war. Duh.

Planning to bomb Chicago is not an act of war?

 

[Jarod]

Perhaps, but that might take some findings by a civil court first.

And why would droopy drawers not get the same oppertunity?

 

[DamnYankee]

Planning to bomb Chicago is not an act of war?

When they were apprehended any attorney could argue otherwise. Droopy Drawers, however, was caught in the very act.

 

[Jarod]

When they were apprehended any attorney could argue otherwise. Droopy Drawers, however, was caught in the very act.

So you are making the determination based on what you have heard from the media?

 

[DamnYankee]

So you are making the determination based on what you have heard from the media?

Are you denying these simple facts?

 

[Jarod]

Are you denying these simple facts?

I am saying you cant suspend civil rights based on accusations.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Just look at the Constitution, some portions apply only to Citizins, like voting rights. The 14th Amendment has portions that apply to Citizins and portions that apply to "any person".

..."nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Words mean things, had the writers of the Constitution intended only citizins, they would have said... "any citizen", instead they said "any person"!

Dimwit!

So you are saying, this was intended by our Founding Fathers to apply to the "redskin savages" populating the woods to the west? If they didn't intend to deny them life, liberty, or property without due process, why did they almost immediately start doing just that? And if they really intended not to deny "any person" liberty, how did we manage to have slavery for another 85 years?

Yeah, words mean stuff, but actions speak louder than words. We can clearly understand their intent of "any person" is not what you currently assume it to be, history just doesn't bear that out.

A military tribunal is a kind of military court designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. Military tribunals are distinct from courts-martial.

A military tribunal is an inquisitorial system based on charges brought by a military authority, prosecuted by a military authority, judged by military officers, and sentenced by military officers against a member of an adversarial force.

This has been used since George Washington was president, to deal with enemies of the state on US soil. I don't know why it is all of a sudden a controversial thing. There is a fundamental reason or two, for why we can't do US civil court hearings in these type of cases. First and foremost, the Constitutional requirement to give the defendant a "fair trial by a jury of his piers." ...Where are you going to find 12 jurors who are non-citizens, enemies of the US, members of alQaeda, and sympathetic to Islamic Jihad? Dearborne, Michigan?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So you are saying, this was intended by our Founding Fathers to apply to the "redskin savages" populating the woods to the west? If they didn't intend to deny them life, liberty, or property without due process, why did they almost immediately start doing just that? And if they really intended not to deny "any person" liberty, how did we manage to have slavery for another 85 years?

an unfortunate viewpoint of those times were that blacks weren't considered persons, but property. Native Americans were not persons, but uncivilized savages. legal semantics, which was code words for 'fuck it, we're doing it anyway'.