not guilty

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]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?

[/b]Denying alleged terroris ...[text shortened]... them the treatment they deserve is "giving in to them"? Your logic makes no sense whatsoever.[/b]

The guy brought an incendiary device on to a plane. There have been many cases where this occurred and the person who did so has always been treated as a criminal (there are criminal laws covering such behavior). Why treat him like a soldier in a war? You're glorifying his action by doing so.

Originally posted by generalissimo
["Denying alleged terrorists a fair civilian criminal trial is tantamount to giving in to the terrorists"] 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.

Your retort says more about your powers of logic than it does about the argument that I laid out.

Originally posted by generalissimo
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 terrorist them the treatment they deserve is "giving in to them"? Your logic makes no sense whatsoever.

Did you know that there are federal laws - relevant to the federal judicial system - that actually address terrorism? Why are those laws even in the books if they're not meant to address captured terrorists?

Did you speak out such disagreement when the Bush administration tried and convicted the shoe bomber in civilian courts?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Did you know that there are federal laws - relevant to the federal judicial system - that actually address terrorism? Why are those laws even in the books if they're not meant to address captured terrorists?

Did you speak out such disagreement when the Bush administration tried and convicted the shoe bomber in civilian courts?

Did you know that there are federal laws - relevant to the federal judicial system - that actually address terrorism? Why are those laws even in the books if they're not meant to address captured terrorists?

http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/tribunal.html


Did you speak out such disagreement when the Bush administration tried and convicted the shoe bomber in civilian courts?

No, I did not. But personally I don't think it was the best thing to do.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Did you know that there are federal laws - relevant to the federal judicial system - that actually address terrorism? Why are those laws even in the books if they're not meant to address captured terrorists?

Very good point.

Several sections of the Federal sentencing guidelines involve penalties for terrorism and terrorism related activities. Obviously, the intent was for terrorists to be tried in the federal criminal system.

Originally posted by sh76
Very good point.

Several sections of the Federal sentencing guidelines involve penalties for terrorism and terrorism related activities. Obviously, the intent was for terrorists to be tried in the federal criminal system.

for example?

Originally posted by generalissimo
for example?

I can easily post some examples. But if I do will you then concede that by law he is required to be tried in federal court?

Originally posted by generalissimo
for example?

http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/2m5_1.htm

http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/2m5_2.htm

http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/2m5_3.htm

http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/2m6_1.htm

and there are plenty more...

Originally posted by sh76
http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/2m5_1.htm

http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/2m5_2.htm

http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/2m5_3.htm

http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/2m6_1.htm

and there are plenty more...

And to those who insist he should not be tried in federal court, are these laws now obsolete? If so by what order?

It's obvious he was in the act of doing something which caused the passengers to fear for their lives.... Too bad the guy didn't put a choke hold on him, and end him there. Then enter his own plead for insanity, due to the extreme conditions of the event.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
It's obvious he was in the act of doing something which caused the passengers to fear for their lives.... Too bad the guy didn't put a choke hold on him, and end him there.

This is an odd thing for you to say when you know that Mr Abdulmutallab may well now reveal details of al-Qaeda networks and conspiracies that he may have learnt about in Yemen.

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]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 terrorist them the treatment they deserve is "giving in to them"? Your logic makes no sense whatsoever.

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

[/b]the whole point is that we should treat SUSPECTS as being people who might be innocent - no matter what it is that are suspected for doing. Do you believe that the US should round up a bunch of scary-looking people and just hold them indefinitely because we THINK they MIGHT be terrorists? Or should we subject them to scrutiny to make sure we KNOW that they're terrorists?

This is precisely what USArmyParatrooper & Co are risking their lives for. A system that he and everyone else in this country are very proud of.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
I can easily post some examples. But if I do will you then concede that by law he is required to be tried in federal court?

But if I do will you then concede that by law he is required to be tried in federal court?

yes, of course.

Originally posted by sh76
http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/2m5_1.htm

http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/2m5_2.htm

http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/2m5_3.htm

http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/2m6_1.htm

and there are plenty more...

what happened to this?

http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/tribunal.html

Originally posted by Melanerpes
[b]A system that he and everyone else in this country are very proud of.

everyone?