Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 05 May '10 19:33 / 1 edit
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/05/administration-faces-criticism-mirandizing-times-square-suspect/

    Updated May 05, 2010
    Administration Faces Criticism for Mirandizing Times Square Suspect
  2. 05 May '10 19:34
    i vote enemy combatant.
  3. 05 May '10 19:35
    is holder nuts, unfamiliar, too steeped in civilian jurisprudence, or spot on?
  4. 05 May '10 19:35
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    i vote enemy combatant.
    he's a civilian, considering he is a US citizen not some guy from the middle-east who went to the US specifically to commit acts of terrorism.
  5. 05 May '10 19:42
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    i vote enemy combatant.
    A vote for tyranny, once again.
  6. 05 May '10 20:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    he's a civilian, considering he is a US citizen not some guy from the middle-east who went to the US specifically to commit acts of terrorism.
    So if Al-Qaeda was to recruit a whole bunch of US citizens to create malicious mayhem, those people would be any different from anyone else Al-Qaeda recruited?
  7. 05 May '10 20:05
    military actions should invoke military rules and military punishments.

    for timothy mcveigh, too.
  8. 05 May '10 21:25
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    military actions should invoke military rules and military punishments.

    for timothy mcveigh, too.
    why not use military rules for everyone?
  9. 05 May '10 22:35
    why not?
  10. 05 May '10 22:58
    It might give government a lot of additional power - conservatives might not like it very much.
  11. 06 May '10 04:06
    i didn't think conservatives were typically worried much of the rights of criminals. more the opposite.
  12. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    06 May '10 05:30
    There's no such thing as an enemy combatant.
    He's a civilian criminal.
  13. Standard member misterrigel
    Dosadi Survivor
    06 May '10 06:26
    "Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn, said as far as he's concerned, Shahzad lost his entitlement to Miranda Rights when he was arrested on terrorism charges"

    yikes.

    Thank God Obama has a little more sense.
  14. 06 May '10 08:03
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    i didn't think conservatives were typically worried much of the rights of criminals. more the opposite.
    The question is, are conservatives worried about the rights of the accused ? Though this group overlaps with the criminals, they are very much different and should be treated differently. Apparently you don't have to think about the difference when you're accused of terrorism.
  15. 06 May '10 08:06
    Originally posted by misterrigel
    "Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn, said as far as he's concerned, Shahzad lost his entitlement to Miranda Rights when he was arrested on terrorism charges"

    yikes.

    Thank God Obama has a little more sense.
    Yup, this is one of the most scary things about the war on Terror. Innocent until proven guilty, one of the cornerstones of any decent system of laws, is apparently unnecessary when we're talking about terrorism.