Faisal Shahzad: Civilian, or enemy combatant?

Faisal Shahzad: Civilian, or enemy combatant?

Debates

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Standard memberzeeblebot

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

Standard memberzeeblebot

silicon valley

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
101289
05 May 10

i vote enemy combatant.

Standard memberzeeblebot

silicon valley

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
101289
05 May 10

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

g
Standard membergeneralissimo

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.

K
Standard memberKazetNagorra

Germany

Joined
27 Oct 08
Moves
3118
05 May 10

Originally posted by zeeblebot
i vote enemy combatant.
A vote for tyranny, once again.

M
Standard memberMelanerpes

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?

Standard memberzeeblebot

silicon valley

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
101289
05 May 10

military actions should invoke military rules and military punishments.

for timothy mcveigh, too.

M
Standard memberMelanerpes

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?

Standard memberzeeblebot

silicon valley

Joined
27 Oct 04
Moves
101289
05 May 10

why not?

M
Standard memberMelanerpes

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.

Standard memberzeeblebot

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.

Subscribershavixmir
Tum podem

Sewers of Holland

Joined
31 Jan 04
Moves
88063
06 May 10

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

m
Standard membermisterrigel
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.

B
Standard memberBarts

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.

B
Standard memberBarts

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.