An open question...

bravo said:
OK ....common sense tells me to ignore you but I gotta ask....WHO wants to deny the underwear bomber his due process?

and trying to understand what your point is about Cheney...you realize that at the time of the shoe bomber issue, military tribunals were't considered as an alternative to civilian jury trial....

and the rest of your posts seem to be your attempt to play with words rather then debate an issue...
Click to expand...

Well lets start with his right to a jury trial, or his 5th amendment right against self incrimination.

My point about Cheney is that he is saying President Obama's administration should do something his administration did not do, and that doing so would make the world safer...!
 
Jarod said:
So those who are in poverty should be tried by a military tribunal? The U.S. has stated we are at war with poverty!
Click to expand...
Don't be an idiot. LBJ started that "war", and per usual Democrats use words that they don't really mean. The WOT, however, is a real war, and your friend with the smoking underwear is going to have to face military justice, not civilian.
 
Southern Man said:
Don't be an idiot. LBJ started that "war", and per usual Democrats use words that they don't really mean. The WOT, however, is a real war, and your friend with the smoking underwear is going to have to face military justice, not civilian.
Click to expand...
we are at war with a tactic?
 
Southern Man said:
No dummy, with those that use it.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem with the use of the military tribunal is that no military was involved in either side of this crime.

And wasn't the one of the justifications for waterboarding that the terrorists are not military, and therefore not covered under the Geneva Convention?
 
Jarod said:
Well lets start with his right to a jury trial, or his 5th amendment right against self incrimination.

My point about Cheney is that he is saying President Obama's administration should do something his administration did not do, and that doing so would make the world safer...!
Click to expand...

I didn't hear Cheneys quote...if he said that, hes mistaken...if he said its something the O Admin "shouldn't" do, I agree....

WinterBorn said:
Part of the problem with the use of the military tribunal is that no military was involved in either side of this crime.

You don't have to be 'in' the military to wage war...as in insurgence - an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict

And wasn't the one of the justifications for waterboarding that the terrorists are not military, and therefore not covered under the Geneva Convention?
Click to expand...
.
 
bravo said:
You don't have to be 'in' the military to wage war...as in insurgence - an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict

.
Click to expand...


A case can be made for the terrorist being part of an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing the constitutional government. But not a very strong one.

It was a civilian criminal on a civilian aircraft heading into a civilian airport. Sounds like a civilian matter to me.
 
WinterBorn said:
A case can be made for the terrorist being part of an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing the constitutional government. But not a very strong one.

It was a civilian criminal on a civilian aircraft heading into a civilian airport. Sounds like a civilian matter to me.
Click to expand...

why did obama say "we are at war"?
 
WinterBorn said:
A case can be made for the terrorist being part of an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing the constitutional government. But not a very strong one.

It was a civilian criminal on a civilian aircraft heading into a civilian airport. Sounds like a civilian matter to me.
Click to expand...

Everyone in the AQ is a civilian
Everyone that considers themselves in a Holy war with the west is a civilian
Everyone that fought against the Nazis in the French underground was a civilian....

An act of war is still an act of war no matter who perpetrates it....just because the act is not in behalf of a sovereign country doesn't diminish the act..
 
WinterBorn said:
Hell, we are at war against poverty, drugs, terrorists, obesity, and whatever other causes they want to come out strongly against.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse a figure of speech with reality...thats a game maineman likes to play....

If I'm winning a card game and say , " I'm killing these guys"...what are you gonna do, shoot me to protect the other players....???
 
bravo said:
Don't confuse a figure of speech with reality...thats a game maineman likes to play....

If I'm winning a card game and say , " I'm killing these guys"...what are you gonna do, shoot me to protect the other players....???
Click to expand...

Ok, so the semantics aren't the issue. And the civilian criminal on a civilian aircraft coming into a civilian airport is a military issue?

Yes, there were lots of civilians fighting in WWII. The war was in their homeland, and they were resisting.

This new type of conflict is not covered by conventional definitons (as is evidenced by the claims that the terrorists could be waterboarded because they were not military combatants).
 
So the argument is that we are at war because the President and the past president said so.....

How is taking someones civil rights away based on something the Presidnet Said due process?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top