Why! Why! Why!

[OldRegular]

Lately I have been watching the news of terrorist bombings in Pakistan, a relatively democratic country considering it is a Muslim country. I wonder why the people don't rise up and put a stop to it.

Then I look at our country.

On November 5 a Mohammedan terrorist killed 14 people at Fort Hood, Texas. As of today the president and the leftist community in this country have yet to call Hasan a terrorist. And I ask Why

Now today we learn that the mastermind behind 9/11 is to be brought by Obama to New York for trial in a civilian court and given all the privileges of a citizen of this country. Again I ask Why!

Will the people of this country rise up and put a stop to this madness? If not I ask Why!

 

[Dragoon68]

It is a foolish decision! It will be a circus, a platform of expression for the terrorists, and a source of income for lawyers and media.

It wouldn't surprise me if there's eventually a move to move the venue for Maj. Husan's to a civilian court as well.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I have mixed feelings about trying terrorism suspects in U.S. Federal Court. There is no legal reason why they can't just as there is no legal reason that there can't be military commissions. One thing they do have is a right to a fair trial so the argument that they shouldn't have Constitional protections rings hollow with me. I agree that the Bill of Rights does not apply to foreign combatants, but many of those safeguards are needed to give a fair trial. I like that the defendants will have to face justice where the offences were committed. I also support Attorney General Holder's decision to seek the death penalty if the defendants are convicted.

So, while trials in civilian courts are not required, it is probably the best decision in these circumstances.

 

[Dragoon68]

The Constitution is to protect American citizens from our government.

Only in recent times have people begin to think all the assurances and protections given to us must also be applied to our enemies in war and most especially terrorists. That was never the intent of the Constitution. That thinking is the product of modern legalism and liberalism.

Prisoners of war and terrorists are entitled to nothing except what mercy we desire and agree to give them. We have - and rightly so - agreed to extend certain protections to prisoners of war - a particular status of combatant - but we have - and rightly so - never agreed to extend those protections to terrorists.

It is a foolish precedent to set right in line with treating terrorism as criminal acts rather than acts of war. We will regret it!

 

[Aaron]

The Constitution is to protect American citizens from our government.

Only in recent times have people begin to think all the assurances and protections given to us must also be applied to our enemies in war and most especially terrorists.

They want us thinking in terms of global human rights and looking to the U.N. as the author of such.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

They want us thinking in terms of global human rights and looking to the U.N. as the author of such.

I've actually only ever thought of God as the author of human rights.

Dragoon68, I really see where you're coming from. The issue is that people are made in God's image and we should not punish them without due process.

 

[OldRegular]

I have mixed feelings about trying terrorism suspects in U.S. Federal Court. There is no legal reason why they can't just as there is no legal reason that there can't be military commissions. One thing they do have is a right to a fair trial so the argument that they shouldn't have Constitional protections rings hollow with me. I agree that the Bill of Rights does not apply to foreign combatants, but many of those safeguards are needed to give a fair trial. I like that the defendants will have to face justice where the offences were committed. I also support Attorney General Holder's decision to seek the death penalty if the defendants are convicted.

So, while trials in civilian courts are not required, it is probably the best decision in these circumstances.

I agree with one Representative Peter King of New York who said this was the worst decision ever made by a president of the United States.

This will be nothing but a show trial to inflame the Islamic world against this country. Frankly I am suspicious that is Obama's motive. At best it will give the Obama mites an opportunity to smear the Bush administration and the CIA. At worst it is entirely possible, as some jurists have pointed out, that the case could be dismissed.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

This will be nothing but a show trial to inflame the Islamic world against this country. Frankly I am suspicious that is Obama's motive. At best it will give the Obama mites an opportunity to smear the Bush administration and the CIA. At worst it is entirely possible, as some jurists have pointed out, that the case could be dismissed.

1) How will it be a show trial?
2) Why would Obama want to inflame the Islamic world against us?

 

[OldRegular]

1) How will it be a show trial?
2) Why would Obama want to inflame the Islamic world against us?

Go to the following thread.

No Doubt, He's Out (Obama loves Islam)

 

[RAdam]

Deception is increasing. Seems like I remember the Bible repeatedly referring to great deception in the last days.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have mixed feelings about trying terrorism suspects in U.S. Federal Court. There is no legal reason why they can't just as there is no legal reason that there can't be military commissions. One thing they do have is a right to a fair trial so the argument that they shouldn't have Constitional protections rings hollow with me. I agree that the Bill of Rights does not apply to foreign combatants, but many of those safeguards are needed to give a fair trial. I like that the defendants will have to face justice where the offences were committed. I also support Attorney General Holder's decision to seek the death penalty if the defendants are convicted.

So, while trials in civilian courts are not required, it is probably the best decision in these circumstances.

There is a legal reason why that cannot. In the US courts they will have a right to disclosure which would involve revealing CIA operatives names.

 

[saturneptune]

Lately I have been watching the news of terrorist bombings in Pakistan, a relatively democratic country considering it is a Muslim country. I wonder why the people don't rise up and put a stop to it.

Then I look at our country.

On November 5 a Mohammedan terrorist killed 14 people at Fort Hood, Texas. As of today the president and the leftist community in this country have yet to call Hasan a terrorist. And I ask Why

Now today we learn that the mastermind behind 9/11 is to be brought by Obama to New York for trial in a civilian court and given all the privileges of a citizen of this country. Again I ask Why!

Will the people of this country rise up and put a stop to this madness? If not I ask Why!

Why, because the present administration has no respect, despite the public appearances, for the military, or most important, for the Consitution, life or liberty. They do not understand the term enemy. An enemy and a criminal are not the same thing.

I think the biggest question to ponder is why was this maniac elected in the first place. Whatever the reason, it needs to be fixed with the utmost urgency. If it was the last government failing, are we so blind that we go from bad to worse without a second thought? If that is the case, then it is more a reflection of us as a nation than anything else.

Time is running out. If the American people do not focus on what is going on instead of reality shows and Logan's restaurant, we are going to hit a point of no return, and justifiably so.

 

[Dragoon68]

... Time is running out. If the American people do not focus on what is going on instead of reality shows and Logan's restaurant, we are going to hit a point of no return, and justifiably so.

That's the truth!

 

[Aaron]

Aaron: They want us thinking in terms of global human rights and looking to the U.N. as the author of such.

Paul3144: I've actually only ever thought of God as the author of human rights.

Arbiter, then. Either way you hate U.S. sovereignty.

 

[Revmitchell]

Aaron: They want us thinking in terms of global human rights and looking to the U.N. as the author of such.

Paul3144: I've actually only ever thought of God as the author of human rights.

Arbiter, then. Either way you hate U.S. sovereignty.

Yep liberals always do it is a result of their liberal indoctrination and it is unAmerican.

 

[rbell]

Why is this creature given US citizen rights? He should be tried, quickly, by a military tribunal...and if found guilty, executed...slowly and painfully.

 

[billwald]

>I agree that the Bill of Rights does not apply to foreign combatants,

But the Geneva Convention does and it became US law many decades ago.

 

[saturneptune]

Aaron: They want us thinking in terms of global human rights and looking to the U.N. as the author of such.

Paul3144: I've actually only ever thought of God as the author of human rights.

Arbiter, then. Either way you hate U.S. sovereignty.

I have no idea who Paul 3144 is, but have you ever read the Declaration of Independence, that "we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Unbelievable

Nothing about our present government cares a thing about US sovereignty, otherwise, we would not waste one dime or inch of land on the UN. There is nothing in common between the agenda of the UN and the US Constitution. They are totally incompatable.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Yep liberals always do it is a result of their liberal indoctrination and it is unAmerican.

LOL, I don't remember my indoctrination, I'll ask if anyone in my family has. It's un-American to express my opinion? No, Rev, YOU are un-American because you want the accused terrorists to be tried in a kangaroo court instead of making them face the full consequences of justice in New York. You are un-American because you don't believe in American justice. It's sad how the far right is willing to put their petty political agenda above patriotism and justice.

Second, I'm not a political liberal; I'm a moderate. I'm pro-life, I opposed the stimulus plan in favor of a tax holiday, I want to lower taxes and reduce the budget deficit by cutting spending. And before you ask, I'm theologically conservative because I affirm the 2000 BF&M.

Back to the topic, we have to be careful before we label terrorists "monsters" or "sub-human." The reason is because they still bear the image of God. Now, of course they did horrific things and should be punished, but only after due process of law and general principles of fairness. I don't think it has to be done in Federal District Court, but there would be legal hassles involved in military commissions, so Federal District Court is the best option within the context of these cases.

Aaron, I don't need you to tell me what I believe. I love my country and her sovereignty.

 

[Dragoon68]

>I agree that the Bill of Rights does not apply to foreign combatants,

But the Geneva Convention does and it became US law many decades ago.

It applies to specific categories of persons in specific conditions. It is the result of a treaty to which we are a voluntary party and, in fact, the leader of getting it established. We did this because we elected to show mercy to prisoners of war - not because we were obligated to do so by our Constitution. We did not grant these rights to all persons in all conditions. Prisoners of war - the lawful kind - are, by the way, not dealt with in our civil court system. They are subject to the same UCMJ as our own military. The decision to treat low-life terrorists as prisoners of war and now as "criminals" in civilian courts is a stupid one for which we will pay dearly.