14 Nov 09
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFShould one be so concerned about appearance and beauty points when engaged in war?
BBC headline: [b]Republicans condemn the US administration's decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York.
To my way of thinking, the 'decision' is a key step in the process of restoring the U.S.'s stature after the hammering it took in the Bush years.
Republican condemnations appear to me to be rooted in small minded re ...[text shortened]... y without doing, and adhering to, what it takes - and what it took in the past - to earn it.[/b]
Woops, my bad, the US is not at war with anyone. All acts of terror the US has experienced are all isolated incidences of "crazy" people just like at Fort Hood.
14 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyPrinciple and legality are not issues of "appearance".
Should one be so concerned about appearance when engaged in war?
Woops, my bad, the US is not at war with anyone. All acts of terror the US has experienced are all isolated incidences of "crazy" people.
I said nothing about "isolated incidences" so I shall take these words of yours out of my mouth if you don't mind.
Yes, you're right. The U.S. is not at war. War is a legal state between nations. The U.S. is engaged in a series of badly handled (Iraq and Afghanistan have been debacles) ad hoc, cavalier, illegal, ultimately counterproductive, operations (propagandized and comic-bookified as "a war" ) which have not been as effective as legitimate, methodical, righteous (in the true sense of the word) militarized international criminal investigations and their resulting arrests/fatal firefights would have been.
You should never have dignified these terrorists by telling them they had the "war" they craved. You should have treated them as criminals from the word go.
Fortunately, the U.S. is modifying its policy.
14 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFthats easy for you to say. if you were in new york or anywhere in the u.s. during 9/11 you would be singing a differnt tune
Principle and legality are not issues of "appearance".
I said nothing about "isolated incidences" so I shall take these words of yours out of my mouth if you don't mind.
Yes, you're right. The U.S. is not at war. War is a legal state between nations. The U.S. is engaged in a series of badly handled (Iraq and Afghanistan have been debacles) ad hoc, cavalier ...[text shortened]... them as criminals from the word go.
Fortunately, the U.S. is modifying its policy.
14 Nov 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonMmm. Sounds about as sophisticated as it got when the Bush Doctrine was being peddled.
thats easy for you to say. if you were in new york or anywhere in the u.s. during 9/11 you would be singing a differnt tune
Well I knew people who were killed on 12 October 2002, and indirectly someone killed on 1 October 2005, so perhaps your suggestion that there's only one tune that can be sung in a situation as deadly serious as this merely reminds us of the similarities between your mindset and the Al Qaeda mindset, something often commented on, even by some Americans themselves, during the Bush years.
14 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFwhatever fmf,whatever
Mmm. Sounds about as sophisticated as it got when the Bush Doctrine was being peddled.
Well I knew people who were killed on 12 October 2002, and indirectly someone killed on 1 October 2005, so perhaps your suggestion that there's only one tune that can be sung in a situation as deadly serious as this merely reminds us of the similarities between your mindse ...[text shortened]... indset, something often commented on, even by some Americans themselves, during the Bush years.
14 Nov 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonIf it was an "act of war" what would they be tried for? No trials were held for US bomber crews who blew up buildings and killed civilians in WWII.
thats where we disagree.I view it as a act of war.It is a jihad,a holy war against us. They should be tried in a military tribunal.
14 Nov 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonUTPD: Being tried now in our judicial system they stand a good chance of being acquitted.
the previous administration defined them as "enemy combatants" and was dealing w/them accordingly.This administration wants to change that now and deal w/them as felons. Being tried now in our judicial system they stand a good chance of being acquitted. Not to mention it will cost tens of millions of dollars and be dragged out for God only knows how long to deal w/them this way.
You seriously believe that KSM stands a "good chance of acquittal" in a NY court?
15 Nov 09
interesting.[/b]No. I believe that they should not be tried in this country. They should be tried in Guantanamo and if found guilty, they should be executed in Guantanamo.
They should not be allowed to step foot in this country for any reason.
As for being found not guilty, do you honestly think that these defendants have a chance at an acquittal? You can rest assured that every last bit of evidence will be thrown at them until something sticks. No way they walk away scot free from this.
Unfortunately, even if they are innocent, they carry the burden of being the only ones held responsible for 9/11, since we don't have Bin Laden. That makes it almost imperative that thay are held accountable. Can you imagine the public outcry resulting from any verdict other than guilty?
15 Nov 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonHmmm. I thought the idea of having him tried in NY where the fruits of his (alleged) crimes took place was a neat idea. I'm not worried about him remaining a threat to this country any more than I'm still worried about Ted Kazynski and all the other people in US prisons for life. His actions killed people in NY (again, allegedly), so why not let the NY people have their crack at administering justice in his case?
ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf reports:
While the mayor and the two Democratic senators from New York are on-board with the Justice Department on the administration’s decision to try KSM and others in federal courts, there is some growing pushback among conservative Democrats.
"It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them a ...[text shortened]... aid.
[b]Personally,I have to agree w/Web on this. Anybody else agree or disagree?[/b]
If, by some enormously slim chance, he were acquitted, then they could deport him or send him back to Gitmo or whatever.
I also think that, in his case, life at SuperMax would be a worse punishment than death by lethal injection.
15 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWelcome back, no1!
UTPD: Being tried now in our judicial system they stand a good chance of being acquitted.
You seriously believe that KSM stands a "good chance of acquittal" in a NY court?
I think the chances of an acquittal are extremely slim.
But I would like to remind everyone that even in the unlikely event of an acquittal, that does not mean he would have to be released, and especially not on US soil. He could still be held on the same grounds that the others at Gitmo are being held (whatever exactly they are).
15 Nov 09
Originally posted by no1marauderIf I was the attorney my first motion would be change of venue,Where in New York could one person be found to be a juror who would not be biased?
UTPD: Being tried now in our judicial system they stand a good chance of being acquitted.
You seriously believe that KSM stands a "good chance of acquittal" in a NY court?
Also, I feel this is a vailed attempt to drag the prior administration and the CIA through the mud.
15 Nov 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonWhere in this country would you find a juror that would not be biased?
If I was the attorney my first motion would be change of venue,Where in New York could one person be found to be a juror who would not be biased?
Also, I feel this is a vailed attempt to drag the prior administration and the CIA through the mud.