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

Debates Forum

  1. 09 Jan '10 20:27
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126296584036721669.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news

    Terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab pleaded not guilty Friday in a federal court in Detroit on a six-count indictment for allegedly attempting to blow up a Detroit-bound plane and murder its 279 passengers and 11 crew members

    why not try him as a criminal combatant? why allow these absurdities to happen?
  2. 09 Jan '10 20:32
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126296584036721669.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news

    [b]Terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab pleaded not guilty Friday in a federal court in Detroit on a six-count indictment for allegedly attempting to blow up a Detroit-bound plane and murder its 279 passengers and 11 crew members


    why not try him as a criminal combatant? why allow these absurdities to happen?[/b]
    President Obama’s chief counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan, has hinted that a plea bargain could be offered to persuade Mr Abdulmutallab to reveal details of al-Qaeda networks and conspiracies that he may have learnt about in Yemen.

    Yesterday Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of New York at the time of the September 2001 attacks, condemned the approach as impractical. “If you put someone in a civilian court, within a short period of time a lawyer is appointed and the person shuts up,” he told ABC News. “If you have a person in the military system you can question him endlessly.”


    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6981489.ece
  3. 09 Jan '10 20:33
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126296584036721669.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news

    [b]Terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab pleaded not guilty Friday in a federal court in Detroit on a six-count indictment for allegedly attempting to blow up a Detroit-bound plane and murder its 279 passengers and 11 crew members


    why not try him as a criminal combatant? why allow these absurdities to happen?[/b]
    One thing ,it showa the mentality of these terror suspects .
    Is he so stupid that he thinks he will be found not guilty ?
  4. 09 Jan '10 20:37
    Originally posted by phil3000
    One thing ,it showa the mentality of these terror suspects .
    Is he so stupid that he thinks he will be found not guilty ?
    It is standard in the u.s. legal system to ALWAYS enter a not guilty plea at this phase of the proceedings.
  5. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    09 Jan '10 20:49
    Originally posted by phil3000
    One thing ,it showa the mentality of these terror suspects .
    Is he so stupid that he thinks he will be found not guilty ?
    So, you find him guilty before a trial by his peers?
    You're going to base someone's sentencing on here-say and what the media has told you?
  6. 09 Jan '10 21:12
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    So, you find him guilty before a trial by his peers?
    You're going to base someone's sentencing on here-say and what the media has told you?
    Every one is innocent untill proven guilty [in educated ,modern countries]
    Concidering the severe burns and the state of his under wear ,and the syringe that was to be used as a detanator for his explosives .
    Do you think he is innocent ?
    What will his line of defence be ? "some one planted it on me ,your honour"
    Might be a bit difficult ,dont you think ?
  7. 09 Jan '10 21:13
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    It is standard in the u.s. legal system to ALWAYS enter a not guilty plea at this phase of the proceedings.
    Thank you , i wasn't aware of that .
  8. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    09 Jan '10 21:19
    Originally posted by phil3000
    Every one is innocent untill proven guilty [in educated ,modern countries]
    Concidering the severe burns and the state of his under wear ,and the syringe that was to be used as a detanator for his explosives .
    Do you think he is innocent ?
    What will his line of defence be ? "some one planted it on me ,your honour"
    Might be a bit difficult ,dont you think ?
    Maybe his family were being held hostage and were going to be killed if he didn't do as he was told?

    Perhaps he was a schitzophrenic.

    Both reasons for pleading not-guilty. Wouldn't you agree?
  9. 09 Jan '10 21:23
    Originally posted by phil3000
    Thank you , i wasn't aware of that .
    no problem.just to be clear,a person can plead guilty anytime they want to but it is foolish to do so at this early phase. any lawyer will tell you that and this guy has got a lawyer.
    thats what I mean by "standard" procedure. a defendant is almost expected to do that.
  10. 09 Jan '10 22:15
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    President Obama’s chief counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan,[b] has hinted that a plea bargain could be offered to persuade Mr Abdulmutallab to reveal details of al-Qaeda networks and conspiracies that he may have learnt about in Yemen.

    Yesterday Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of New York at the time of the September 2001 attacks, condemned the a ...[text shortened]... ndlessly.”


    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6981489.ece[/b]
    Rudy Guliani also claimed there were no terrorist attacks on US soil under Bush's Presidency. He also said the "shoe bomber" happened before 9-11.

    He's either a complete idiot or he's completely dishonest.
  11. 10 Jan '10 15:42 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Maybe his family were being held hostage and were going to be killed if he didn't do as he was told?

    Perhaps he was a schitzophrenic.

    Both reasons for pleading not-guilty. Wouldn't you agree?
    "Maybe his family were being held hostage "
    Didn't his father try to warn the authorities about his son's convertion to radicalism and could be a possible threat ?
    Doesn't seem like a family held hostage to me !
    I have heard no mention of any mental disabilities on his behalf .
    Surely ,that would of been his only chance for a softer conviction !
    And what about you , do you think he is innocent?
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    10 Jan '10 16:13
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    why not try him as a criminal combatant? why allow these absurdities to happen?
    If due legal process in countries like the U.S., the foundation of western civilization, is an "absurdity", then why have people like USArmyParatrooper been risking their lives to defend it? One defends principles by sticking to them. Denying alleged terrorists a fair civilian criminal trial is tantamount to giving in to the terrorists.
  13. 10 Jan '10 17:00
    Originally posted by FMF
    If due legal process in countries like the U.S., the foundation of western civilization, is an "absurdity", then why have people like USArmyParatrooper been risking their lives to defend it? One defends principles by sticking to them. Denying alleged terrorists a fair civilian criminal trial is tantamount to giving in to the terrorists.
    "Foundation of western civilization " ?
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    10 Jan '10 17:07
    Originally posted by phil3000
    "Foundation of western civilization " ?
    Yep. The disinterested and consistent rule of law. Without a doubt. It's something - maybe one of the very few things - that right and left can agree on unreservedly.
  15. 10 Jan '10 17:43
    Originally posted by FMF
    If due legal process in countries like the U.S., the foundation of western civilization, is an "absurdity", then why have people like USArmyParatrooper been risking their lives to defend it? One defends principles by sticking to them. Denying alleged terrorists a fair civilian criminal trial is tantamount to giving in to the terrorists.
    why have people like USArmyParatrooper been risking their lives to defend it?

    I thought people like USArmyparatrooper were risking their lives to fight terrorism, not treat terrorists like they were common criminals.

    One defends principles by sticking to them

    what principle are you referring to?

    Denying alleged terrorists a fair civilian criminal trial is tantamount to giving in to the terrorists.

    This is nonsense. By giving terrorists civilian trials you're completely ignoring the context of this war. So giving them the treatment they deserve is "giving in to them"? Your logic makes no sense whatsoever.