Faisal Shahzad: Civilian, or enemy combatant?

zeeblebot

Debates

05 May 10

zeeblebot

silicon valley

Joined: 27 Oct 04
Moves: 101289

05 May 10

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

zeeblebot

silicon valley

Joined: 27 Oct 04
Moves: 101289

05 May 10

i vote enemy combatant.

zeeblebot

silicon valley

Joined: 27 Oct 04
Moves: 101289

05 May 10

is holder nuts, unfamiliar, too steeped in civilian jurisprudence, or spot on?

generalissimo

Pepperland

Joined: 30 May 07
Moves: 12892

05 May 10

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.

KazetNagorra

Germany

Joined: 27 Oct 08
Moves: 3118

05 May 10

Originally posted by zeeblebot
i vote enemy combatant.

A vote for tyranny, once again.

Melanerpes

Joined: 08 Oct 08
Moves: 5542

05 May 10

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?

zeeblebot

silicon valley

Joined: 27 Oct 04
Moves: 101289

05 May 10

military actions should invoke military rules and military punishments.

for timothy mcveigh, too.

Melanerpes

Joined: 08 Oct 08
Moves: 5542

05 May 10

Originally posted by zeeblebot
military actions should invoke military rules and military punishments.

for timothy mcveigh, too.

why not use military rules for everyone?

zeeblebot

silicon valley

Joined: 27 Oct 04
Moves: 101289

05 May 10

why not?

Melanerpes

Joined: 08 Oct 08
Moves: 5542

05 May 10

It might give government a lot of additional power - conservatives might not like it very much.

zeeblebot

silicon valley

Joined: 27 Oct 04
Moves: 101289

06 May 10

i didn't think conservatives were typically worried much of the rights of criminals. more the opposite.

shavixmir

Lord

Sewers of Holland

Joined: 31 Jan 04
Moves: 89787

06 May 10

There's no such thing as an enemy combatant.
He's a civilian criminal.

misterrigel

Dosadi Survivor

Chicago

Joined: 24 Jul 07
Moves: 27796

06 May 10

"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.

Barts

Joined: 06 Aug 06
Moves: 1945

06 May 10

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.

Barts

Joined: 06 Aug 06
Moves: 1945

06 May 10

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.