- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why the desire to bring a terrorist to USA and treat him as a common criminal?
Posted on 6/17/14 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 6/17/14 at 3:46 pm
with Miranda warnings and a slick attorney to ensure he doesn't provide any info that would help undo the terrorist organization?
This whole "shut down Gitmo" bullshite makes me irritable.
Anyone have a defense of this tactic?
btw: I don't like the Miranda bullshite when applied to real American criminals. If you
can entice them to give info about how, when, where, why, who they did the crime, what is wrong with that?
This whole "shut down Gitmo" bullshite makes me irritable.
Anyone have a defense of this tactic?
btw: I don't like the Miranda bullshite when applied to real American criminals. If you
can entice them to give info about how, when, where, why, who they did the crime, what is wrong with that?
This post was edited on 6/17/14 at 3:49 pm
10
Posted on 6/17/14 at 3:49 pm to ChineseBandit58
i think the argument generally boils down to a natural law/ foundations of america type of argument
Posted on 6/17/14 at 3:52 pm to petar
doesn't compute.
I don't believe a criminal has any 'rights' to be declared "not guilty" for a crime he actually committed.
I can agree that 'beating a confession' out of someone should not be allowed. But I'd address that by stipulating that a 'confession' doesn't mean a hill of beans, and should not be allowable, unless the defendant repeats it in person at trial.
There should be no reward for 'getting a confession.' What we need is INFORMATION. If the info is true, it should matter not where, when, or how, it was obtained.
Facts are facts and a trial should be a search for the truth.
I don't believe a criminal has any 'rights' to be declared "not guilty" for a crime he actually committed.
I can agree that 'beating a confession' out of someone should not be allowed. But I'd address that by stipulating that a 'confession' doesn't mean a hill of beans, and should not be allowable, unless the defendant repeats it in person at trial.
There should be no reward for 'getting a confession.' What we need is INFORMATION. If the info is true, it should matter not where, when, or how, it was obtained.
Facts are facts and a trial should be a search for the truth.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 4:01 pm to ChineseBandit58
He was a role player on the evening of 9-11-12. Not the mastermind. Three charges, wonder if they will stick with all three.
This post was edited on 6/17/14 at 5:36 pm
Posted on 6/17/14 at 4:03 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
I don't believe a criminal has any 'rights' to be declared "not guilty" for a crime he actually committed.
He isn't a "criminal" until he is judged a criminal, but to your other point about being declared NG for something he actually did, it's why our AG's have to follow the law.....supposedly.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 4:03 pm to ChineseBandit58
Whoa, gonna have to disagree with you on that one.
Everyone is entitled to be presumed innocent.
Now that's different than bringing enemy combatants, who are not part of an organized army, and are not signatories to the Geneva Conventio, to US soil, where they know all they have to do is "lawyer up".
Everyone is entitled to be presumed innocent.
Now that's different than bringing enemy combatants, who are not part of an organized army, and are not signatories to the Geneva Conventio, to US soil, where they know all they have to do is "lawyer up".
Posted on 6/17/14 at 4:05 pm to ChineseBandit58
According to Obama and Candy Crowley this guy is a terrorist. We send terrorists to Gitmo. Or we should.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 4:06 pm to ChineseBandit58
Because we need a public trial so the planner of the spontaneous attack can tell us he's mad at a video.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 4:08 pm to petar
quote:
i think the argument generally boils down to a natural law/ foundations of america type of argument
So exactly when was the last time an enemy combatant captured by our military in a foreign land during wartime was brought to the US to face charges in US civilian courts?
Posted on 6/17/14 at 4:09 pm to ChineseBandit58
Ahmed Abu Khattala has given interviews to the NYT and Fox News. Did we really capture him or did he just get lost looking for CNN?
Posted on 6/17/14 at 4:13 pm to Jay Quest
quote:
Ahmed Abu Khattala has given interviews to the NYT and Fox News. Did we really capture him or did he just get lost looking for CNN?
Not likely, as he has already given an interview to CNN's Arwa Damon, the damn good war correspondent who is also the one who found the diary of Chris Stevens.
Now, had you asked if he was looking for a reporter from the Lakeland Ledger, then ...
Posted on 6/17/14 at 4:27 pm to redandright
quote:
Everyone is entitled to be presumed innocent.
Of course.
But that is not my position. An innocent person cannot be 'tricked' into showing where the dead body is located.
If you trick someone - but just asking him - or making him feel bad about what he did - into showing where he disposed of the body, then to me that is perfectly OK.
And to say that 'uh-oh - you didn't say "may I" first' is just bullshite. Excluded information is silly. The facts are the facts. The guy can get on the stand and say "but I didn't know they could actually USE that info in my trial" all he wants. If if show guilt then so be it.
I am talking about people who are for sure NOT INNOCENT - and are in fact GUILTY - being let off because some officer didn't do something right.
But that is all off topic - why should an ENEMY COMBATANT be given the protections of the American system of justice for common criminals?
this is not merely a crime like holding up a liquor store - this is an act of war.
different rules.
this merely allows the terrorist to be coached by an American lawyer to blame it on a video.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 4:31 pm to Bard
quote:
So exactly when was the last time an enemy combatant captured by our military in a foreign land during wartime was brought to the US to face charges in US civilian courts?
Hamdan for 1. i'm sure there were other trials of this manner. For the same reason there were nuremberg trials as well. There has to be a trial some where. We believe that we have the best justice system in the world. Why not try them with the best system.
I'm not saying i support this argument or not. just saying that is what the argument generally boils down to.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 4:38 pm to Bard
quote:John Walker Lindh?
So exactly when was the last time an enemy combatant captured by our military in a foreign land during wartime was brought to the US to face charges in US civilian courts?
The only thing separating those in Gitmo from your question is the federal court part.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 4:42 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Why the desire to bring a terrorist to USA and treat him as a common criminal?
So Obama can have his show trial and make it look like he's doing something.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 4:53 pm to petar
quote:
nuremberg trials
Not a civilian court trial.
I think I see what you are saying... that they deserve a trial. I have no issue with that but considering all the circumstances there's no reason for them to be tried in anything but a military court.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 4:55 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:If we are going to hold them indefinitely, don't you think that we should find them guilty of something beyond a reasonable doubt?
Why the desire to bring a terrorist to USA and treat him as a common criminal?
Posted on 6/17/14 at 4:58 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
with Miranda warnings and a slick attorney to ensure he doesn't provide any info that would help undo the terrorist organization?
This whole "shut down Gitmo" bullshite makes me irritable.
Anyone have a defense of this tactic?
btw: I don't like the Miranda bullshite when applied to real American criminals. If you
can entice them to give info about how, when, where, why, who they did the crime, what is wrong with that?
Because we are a country of laws.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 5:23 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:Applied equally without wavering from that right?
Because we are a country of laws.
Posted on 6/17/14 at 5:27 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:They brought him here so they can show him the youtube video and make sure he understands that the video is the reason he attacked the embassy.
Why the desire to bring a terrorist to USA and treat him as a common criminal?
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News