Senators to AG Holder: "Who decided bomber was civilian?"

[rbell]

So if a terrorist cell is trained, financed and equiped by a foreign government, but not a member of a military - and then come to the US and detonate a homemade nuclear bomb in the financial district of New York...

... you would say that since a civilian target was attacked then they should be charged in the United States District Court - being the proper venue and all ?

Just think...they could use the court case as propaganda...they would have access to our security plans (right of discovery)...it would embolden others to attack...and it would take years (or decades) to mete out justice (if any occurred)...not to mention the possibility of an idiot judge letting them out, or a plea bargain, etc.

Of all the ridiculous viewpoints on the BB, I cannot believe someone would be so (putting it kindly) misguided as to think this is legal, wise, or in the best interest of our country.

I liken this to our aircraft carriers in WW2 not going up after Kamikaze pilots, because we "might be misreading their intentions," so instead we chose to play Tony Robbins motivational tapes over their radio frequencies.

Stupid, dangerous, and unappreciative of the price of freedom.

 

[targus]

I'm going to have to do some research on that. I'll get back to you by tomorrow morning. I've got some work to do for my college classes and I have to go apply for a job. Once I'm done with that I'll get back with you.

Paul3144, did you forget about this?

 

[tinytim]

Anyone trying to blow up a plane deserves to be killed when they land on the ground!..

NO rights for terrorists.. Kill them all..

Send them to their maker, and let God sort out the details.

Harsh.. Yep...

Fair...
YES..

If you try to kill me or my family.. I WILL KILL YOU!..
NO different in the air or on the ground.

Terrorists deserve death.. not a trial.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Paul3144, did you forget about this?

Yes, I did. There's one thing I need to look up. I'll answer you in a few minutes.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

So if a terrorist cell is trained, financed and equiped by a foreign government, but not a member of a military - and then come to the US and detonate a homemade nuclear bomb in the financial district of New York...

... you would say that since a civilian target was attacked then they should be charged in the United States District Court - being the proper venue and all ?

Okay, there is some precedent here. In 1942 six German saboteurs were executed for attempting to attack the civil infrastructure of the United States. In your example, it would depend on if the attackers were acting as agents of said foreign government. If so, then it could be reasonably construed as an act of war and a military tribunal would be the appropriate venue. If not, it would depend on the exact relationship between the attackers and the foreign government. Your scenario would likely justify a war with the supporting country. With that said, there is a high likelihood that a military tribunal should be used because the nature of the attacks would require a high amount of foreign government involvement.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Anyone trying to blow up a plane deserves to be killed when they land on the ground!..

NO rights for terrorists.. Kill them all..

Send them to their maker, and let God sort out the details.

Harsh.. Yep...

Fair...
YES..

If you try to kill me or my family.. I WILL KILL YOU!..
NO different in the air or on the ground.

Terrorists deserve death.. not a trial.

That's interesting, but our laws don't allow for that without some kind of due process. They may very well be executed if the law in that case allows for execution, but this is America and we don't follow your plan here, but rather the rule of law.

 

[targus]

Okay, there is some precedent here. In 1942 six German saboteurs were executed for attempting to attack the civil infrastructure of the United States. In your example, it would depend on if the attackers were acting as agents of said foreign government. If so, then it could be reasonably construed as an act of war and a military tribunal would be the appropriate venue. If not, it would depend on the exact relationship between the attackers and the foreign government. Your scenario would likely justify a war with the supporting country. With that said, there is a high likelihood that a military tribunal should be used because the nature of the attacks would require a high amount of foreign government involvement.

Do you believe that the particular individual that is the topic of this thread does or does not meet those conditions?

How much time was spent looking into that possibility before they decided to try him in a civilian court?

 

[Matt Black]

He didn't run a stop sign. He tried to blow up a plane.

OK, let's analyse wha you and Carpro are saying here, chunk by chunk

We're not talking about civil or criminal acts...we're talking about terroristic acts of war

Now, which war might that be? This guy is a Nigerian; AFAIK, Congress hasn't authorised the President to declare war against Nigeria. Oh, do you mean president Bush's "War on Terror"? Sorry, but that was just a rehotorical flourish by Obama's predecessor; there ain't no such legal animal

against US citizens...

Yes, as are most crimes in the US. Your point?

by one who is not a US citizen.

See my above post - what the darn difference should that make? If you're going to start treating non-citizens differently in law to US citizens, watch out for reciprocal actions taken by other countries. Woe betide the next American who gets in a brawl in an English pub - to the Tower with him!

Our rule of law does not afford this person the same rights as a US citizen.

Interesting - can you direct me to the constitutional measure that states this?

Follow me...a terrorist act

So does it make a difference if it is an act of terrorism, then? Should Tim McVeigh have been denied trial by jury and sent to Gitmo instead?

by a non-citizen should never get citizen's rights.

Given all of the above, explain why, exactly?

That doesn't mean justice isn't served

Explain how it is served, then, given all the above

...it does mean, however, that taxpayers don't provide him a lawyer...that he doesn't get discovery rights...and the like.

The discovery rights would presumably be details of the case against him, like the airplane witness statements? It's not like we don't know what they're going to say; thanks to media interviews, that's pretty much in the public domain.

There's a further point to be made, to which I've alluded to on the burqa thread on the Politics board: these cases are all fine and dandy when it's not us or People Like Us on the receiving end of the sort of draconian law to which you aspire...watch out when they come for you though...

 

[Matt Black]

Anyone trying to blow up a plane deserves to be killed when they land on the ground!..

NO rights for terrorists.. Kill them all..

Send them to their maker, and let God sort out the details.

Harsh.. Yep...

Fair...
YES..

If you try to kill me or my family.. I WILL KILL YOU!..
NO different in the air or on the ground.

Terrorists deserve death.. not a trial.

Sorry, Tim, much as I sympathise with your feeling, that's lynch mob justice, and we don't do that in a democracy; stoop to that level and the bad guys have won because they've turned us into them.

 

[rbell]

Interesting - can you direct me to the constitutional measure that states this?

OK...point one: "We the people of the United States..."

That begins the US Constitution.

Sorry, but Nigerian terrorists need not apply.

Secondly...Don't lump me in with the "ban the burqas" crowd. However, I am in favor of keeping our country secure from terrorist attack. Your approach will not accomplish that.

And before the "rule of law" argument is used against me...it is precisely the "rule of law" that made my point.

 

[Matt Black]

OK...point one: "We the people of the United States..."

That begins the US Constitution.

I'm after the statute that says, for example, that if I get in a brawl in a US bar, I should be treated differently in law to the US citizen I'm having the fight with (NB: this is very much a hypothetical example!)

Secondly...Don't lump me in with the "ban the burqas" crowd. However, I am in favor of keeping our country secure from terrorist attack. Your approach will not accomplish that.

I'm just saying...be careful what you wish for. For example, many in the German middle-classes supported the Nazis in 1930-33, because they believed that Hitler could effectively suppress the Communists who threatened all they stood for. Hitler did effectively suppress the Communists and, using the same methods, went on to suppress all other non-Nazis, including the very parties and ideals supported by those in the middle-classes.

And before the "rule of law" argument is used against me...it is precisely the "rule of law" that made my point.

Explain how.

 

[carpro]

Thank God for George W. Bush, who recognized a war when he saw one.

Al Qaeda declared war on the U.S. in the mid nineties. Ignoring it led to 911.

This wrongheaded approach of treating trained and dedicated terrorists, at war with the United States, as nothing more than common criminals will one day have deadly consequences.

The blame will rest squarely on the shoulders of an Obama Adninistration that cared more for being politically correct than protecting the citizens that elected them.

I hope it's not your wife or children that die because you are unable to recognize an enemy when you see one.

 

[Matt Black]

A fine piece of emotional rhetoric, for which I commend you. I can be emotional too, about my wife and children, and it is as well therefore that I am not a legislator or a judge, since I would willingly violate the rule of law when it comes to my family. I know in my heart that I am capable of revenge, for example, of inflicting retribution and, in that respect, it was no idle statement when I said I understood and empathised with Tim's statement. But I also know that there is only One Who has the monopoly on such vengeance, and I am not qualified to execute it; none of us are.

 

[carpro]

You can disregard the facts if you wish. I expect you to.

Here's another one for you to ignore or explain away.

Even obama recognizes we are at war with Al Qaeda by keeping troops in Afghanistan to hunt them down and kill them, but he allows them to come here and try to kill us and treats them the same as he would a bank robber.

If they attack and kill our troops, they are terrorists, but if they attack civilians, they are common criminals.

The inconsistency is glaring, deadly and idiotic.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Thank God for George W. Bush, who recognized a war when he saw one.

Al Qaeda declared war on the U.S. in the mid nineties. Ignoring it led to 911.

Right, blame Clinton.....

This wrongheaded approach of treating trained and dedicated terrorists, at war with the United States, as nothing more than common criminals will one day have deadly consequences.

That's because they are criminals, albeit uncommon. They are not in a military and last time I checked it is illegal to try to blow up an airplane.

The blame will rest squarely on the shoulders of an Obama Adninistration that cared more for being politically correct

Right, because he's part of a commie conspiracy. I'm sure that if Mr. Obama decides to use military commissions, the terrorists will decide to give up. All Democrats go to secret meetings in smoke-filled rooms and plan how we're going to destroy America. I hope I didn't give away all of our secret plan. /sarcasm

than protecting the citizens that elected them.

Like the Electoral College?

I hope it's not your wife or children that die because you are unable to recognize an enemy when you see one.

I'm single and I have no children. Carpro, what would you do if your wife or one of your children adopted politically liberal views?

 

[carpro]

I'm single and I have no children. Carpro, what would you do if your wife or one of your children adopted politically liberal views?

They won't.

They are all smarter than that.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

They won't.

They are all smarter than that.

Nevermind. I've really tried to get along with you, but you're just too hateful. If you would go and try to meet some people, including Democrats, you would find that they are real people that don't fit into your monolithic view.

 

[carpro]

Nevermind. I've really tried to get along with you, but you're just too hateful. If you would go and try to meet some people, including Democrats, you would find that they are real people that don't fit into your monolithic view.

I have 3 grown children. I was not all that politically engaged when they were growing up. I was busy teaching them to think for themselves and to take personal responsibility for their actions. If they learned those two things, they could hardly turn out to be liberals. And they didn't.

I never discussed politics with any of them until they were grown.

They are all reliably conservative.

Sorry if you think that's hateful. It's just the truth. :thumbs:

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I have 3 grown children. I was not all that politically engaged when they were growing up. I was busy teaching them to think for themselves and to take personal responsibility for their actions. If they learned those two things, they could hardly turn out to be liberals. And they didn't.

I never discussed politics with any of them until they were grown.

They are all reliably conservative.

Sorry if you think that's hateful. It's just the truth. :thumbs:

It's yet another veiled attack. All progressives don't think for themselves or take responsibility for their own actions, according to you. You've said in the past that you like to tell off Democrats to their face and you have no liberal friends. It's fairly obvious that you have personal issues with anyone to the left of you politically. So, if one of your children or wife became a Democrat, what would you do?

 

[carpro]

It's yet another veiled attack. All progressives don't think for themselves or take responsibility for their own actions, according to you.

I didn't intend for it to be a veiled attack, just a statement of fact.

That's just a very basic profile of a liberal. There are exceptions, of course.

Advanced liberalism is a form of elitism. They believe that they know what's best for everyone, that the lower classes are too stupid to run their own lives.

When it doesn't work out (which it usually doesn't), they blame it on the stupidity of the masses and never ever take responsibility for their own actions.

That's happening as we speak. The Obamanites are extreme elitists. In the face of overwhelming opposition by the people, their misguided sense of elitism tells them these dummies should appreciate what they are trying to do. So they will continue to try to cram their programs down the throats of people who clearly don't want it, never admitting that the problem is the agenda.

After all the masses are too stupid to know what's best for them, aren't they?