09 Jan 10
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?
09 Jan 10
Originally posted by generalissimoPresident 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.
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]
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🙄
09 Jan 10
Originally posted by generalissimoOne thing ,it showa the mentality of these terror suspects .
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]
Is he so stupid that he thinks he will be found not guilty ?
09 Jan 10
Originally posted by shavixmirEvery one is innocent untill proven guilty [in educated ,modern countries]
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?
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 ?
09 Jan 10
Originally posted by phil3000Maybe his family were being held hostage and were going to be killed if he didn't do as he was told?
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 ?
Perhaps he was a schitzophrenic.
Both reasons for pleading not-guilty. Wouldn't you agree?
09 Jan 10
Originally posted by phil3000no 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.
Thank you , i wasn't aware of that .
thats what I mean by "standard" procedure. a defendant is almost expected to do that.
09 Jan 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonRudy 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.
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]
He's either a complete idiot or he's completely dishonest.
10 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmir"Maybe his family were being held hostage "
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?
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?
10 Jan 10
Originally posted by generalissimoIf 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 not try him as a criminal combatant? why allow these absurdities to happen?
10 Jan 10
Originally posted by FMF"Foundation of western civilization " ?
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.
10 Jan 10
Originally posted by FMFwhy have people like USArmyParatrooper been risking their lives to defend it?
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.
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.