More 9/11 fallout

I wouldnt generalize abt the whole religion of Islam just because a bunch of guys went beserk aka "hala-la-la-la...":) . Muslims are human beings, just like u and me tryin to make a living.

Islam isnt abt violence and terrorism. Every religion has its batch of crazies/fanatics/extremists who interpret the religion in a way it wasnt supposed to be translated. and by doing so, cast a bad image over the entire religion.

The people who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks MUST be judged for wat they did, they destroyed the lives and families of over 3000 people!! They shdnt get away with it lightly.
 
fermeh said:
The people who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks MUST be judged for wat they did, they destroyed the lives and families of over 3000 people!! They shdnt get away with it lightly.
Click to expand...

No one is saying that. Just that we should be sure we have the right people in a just and morally righteous manner. Otherwise, we are no better than those idiots.
 
bike21 said:
No one is saying that. Just that we should be sure we have the right people in a just and morally righteous manner. Otherwise, we are no better than those idiots.
Click to expand...

Definition of "just and morally righteous": Whatever way is different than the US is doing it or has ever done it, always.
 
I don't think Ron Jeremy should get the death penalty.

khalidsheik.jpg
 
flyover said:
Definition of "just and morally righteous": Whatever way is different than the US is doing it or has ever done it, always.
Click to expand...

I couldn't figure out the tone of your post, but regardless...the U.S. isn't perfect, and no one else is either. We just need to try to do things on a higher ground. Always.
 
bike21 said:
I couldn't figure out the tone of your post, but regardless...the U.S. isn't perfect, and no one else is either. We just need to try to do things on a higher ground. Always.
Click to expand...

Mostly agree. There's obviously a broad spectrum here. The people we're up against have killed more Muslims than anyone. Women, children, etc. because they can't stand up to our military personnel, who will take casualties themselves to avoid civilian casualties. That's us on the higher ground.

But we can't do it to the point of suicide. Washington and Jefferson weren't candy-asses. Jefferson sent the Marines to kill the Barbary pirates after first trying to reason with them and being told that the Koran and jihad was the authority under which the pirates raided American ships and killed the crews ie infidels could be killed at will. He didn't send the Marines to take them into custody and bring them back for trial.

Here in the US every war has seen us move higher on the scale of protecting civil liberties. During the Civil War Lincoln suspended the constitution for all practical purposes. During WWII Roosevelt set up camps for US citizens and spied on US citizens.

Now we're trying to pretend that the government is conducting "domestic" wiretapping because foreign communications go through switches here in the US. It's just dumb.

It's ironic that usually if a Gitmo detainee is selected to be sent back to his home country there are immediate protests by his lawyers that his rights will be violated if this is done.

Military tribunals for enemy combatants has been the high ground for centuries. Try to find this level of justice in any of the areas of the world that these combatants come from. It's also quite comical that the Democrats have been briefed on every aspect of how the war is prosecuted and only start the hysterical hand-wringing when they see political advantage.

I think we're doing OK on the higher ground scale.
 
I 'mostly' agree too :) However, I suspect there have been countless atrocities done in every way by every country that has ever gone to battle. Some of these crimes have been punished in a 'just' way and others were battlefield justice. Some were state sponsored, some were humans just being humans. For better or for worse.

I am proud of this country, even with its less than stellar moments. We have done the 'right thing' many times over and will again when the need arises. However I am cautious to give too many civil liberties up under the guise of being 'free from terror'.

In a truly free society, the government must trust the people will do the right thing. In a truly free society there will always be the danger of someone doing something stupid. A government cannot - and most certainly should not - dictate and control every move its citizens make. To help protect us against the criminal elements, we can protect ourselves via education, law enforcement, jobs, good foregin policy, etc. However as soon as a TSA worker is routing through your (airline employee with 10 year background check for instance) things just because he/she 'suspects' you are not an honest citizen then the world has taken an ugly turn. Oh wait, that is already happening.

Hmm...okay how about if an FBI agent comes to your home and conducts a warrant less search just because your name closely matches someone on the 'master list'. We aren't that far off if our own homegrown 'security extremist's have their way. And such people are out there developing the technology and drafting policies to limit our freedoms. Have a look...

http://cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/02/11/laptop.searches

I personally would rather live in a truly free society and risk being blown up than being a part of a fascist police state. That may sound a little extreme in its own right, but we have to keep everyone honest. Including the powers that be. Just to name a few bogus recent items...

- Patriot Act
- Military Commissions Act
- Jose Padilla case
- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case

A quote from U.S. Senator Leahy on the Military Commissions Act...

Passing laws that remove the few checks against mistreatment of prisoners will not help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of the generation of young people around the world being recruited by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Authorizing indefinite detention of anybody the Government designates, without any proceeding and without any recourse—is what our worst critics claim the United States would do, not what American values, traditions and our rule of law would have us do. This is not just a bad bill, this is a dangerous bill.
Click to expand...
Now, don't get me wrong I am not some uber hippie who doesn't realize the importance of security and conservative values (I love my Glock!). However, while I do lean left, I am moderate in most views and get very irritated when the powers that be want to have their way without much public comment or concern. Power corrupts and it is easy to forget where you came from. Lets all be good citizens and keep our government in check.

Slippery slope and all that...

Peace :)
 
bike21 said:
I 'mostly' agree too :) However, I suspect there have been countless atrocities done in every way by every country that has ever gone to battle. Some of these crimes have been punished in a 'just' way and others were battlefield justice. Some were state sponsored, some were humans just being humans. For better or for worse.
Click to expand...

True. There has just been some pure justice administered. One of the men who masterminded and carried out the highjacking of TWA 847 and the murder of a Navy diver who was onboard, has finally been taken out.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2008/02/imad_mughniyah_is_dead/

I am proud of this country, even with its less than stellar moments. We have done the 'right thing' many times over and will again when the need arises. However I am cautious to give too many civil liberties up under the guise of being 'free from terror'.

In a truly free society, the government must trust the people will do the right thing. In a truly free society there will always be the danger of someone doing something stupid. A government cannot - and most certainly should not - dictate and control every move its citizens make. To help protect us against the criminal elements, we can protect ourselves via education, law enforcement, jobs, good foregin policy, etc. However as soon as a TSA worker is routing through your (airline employee with 10 year background check for instance) things just because he/she 'suspects' you are not an honest citizen then the world has taken an ugly turn. Oh wait, that is already happening.
Click to expand...
The real tragedy is we lost many of our rights when we decided to wage a war on drugs and decided that taxing personal income was the way to fund government. The war on terror hasn't opened up much, if any, new ground as far as US citizens losing any more rights.

The fact that we relinquished those rights so willingly, calls into question the whole upset over intelligence gathering and security procedures since 9/11.



Hmm...okay how about if an FBI agent comes to your home and conducts a warrant less search just because your name closely matches someone on the 'master list'. We aren't that far off if our own homegrown 'security extremist's have their way. And such people are out there developing the technology and drafting policies to limit our freedoms. Have a look...
Click to expand...
Are you at all familiar with the number of doors being smashed in on a daily basis looking for a few joints of marijuana? Or the access that the government has to every little detail of your financial dealings? That is where the assault is coming from and has been coming from.
Slippery slope and all that...
Peace :)
Click to expand...
Been slippin' and sliding for a while, I'm afraid.:)
 
OK... time to inject just a tad bit of sanity into all of this...

First of all, regarding the citizen vs. non-citizen argument. US laws apply within the United States to both citizens and non-citizens. The same rights apply to both. This is not the situation in this case, however. This is not a situation of criminal charges within US territory. This is part of a military action, in which other rules apply. For comparison, in WWII, Germans who were captured were not brought back to the States for trial--they were POWs, treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention as a result of their affiliation with a nation-state which was (in most cases) following the same conventions. (For you history buffs, some POWs were brought back to the States, but not for trial--only for detention until the war was over.)

In this case, the prisoners are again being held as prisoners of war (this despite the fact that they are not official representatives of a nation-state and are not in uniform per the Convention and are not following the Conventions themselves). As a result, they do not have access to US courts. As a retired military officer, I take exception to the accusation that military officers would not be adequate jurors. In a military trial, there is no one else who WOULD be an suitable juror. We receive training ad nauseum on the laws of armed conflict, the Geneva Convention, and so on.

Despite the media's portrayal of the military as a bunch of Apocalypse Now rejects, the vast majority of military officers are fine upstanding people that I was proud to serve with. To be honest, I'm getting tired of the implication (not necessarily here, but in general) that our nation's military is filled with incompetent, bloodthirsty psychopaths.

Believe me, I am as concerned as anyone else about the erosion of our freedoms in this country--but this is not one of those instances.
 
flyover said:
It's worth noting that part of our history includes that George Washington oversaw a massacre of Native Americans as part of a plan to "exterminate the Indian threat once and for all." And that Thomas Jefferson was the first to identify and confront the threat that radical Islam and the Koran held for the United States.
Click to expand...

So, you would have been in favor of concentration camps, then? After all, what you're talking about is the same thing, just a different race. Substitute American Indian for Jew and it's exactly the same.

Just because the founding fathers made some mistakes doesn't mean we toss out crazy things like due process. And I'm not saying they need to come here to be tried, I'm fine with a military tribunal, but holding them forever without giving them some kind of forum to be tried in is ridiculous.

If we gave those to the Nazis, we can give them to al Qaeda.
 
Fly4Pay said:
OK... time to inject just a tad bit of sanity into all of this...

First of all, regarding the citizen vs. non-citizen argument. US laws apply within the United States to both citizens and non-citizens. The same rights apply to both. This is not the situation in this case, however. This is not a situation of criminal charges within US territory. This is part of a military action, in which other rules apply. For comparison, in WWII, Germans who were captured were not brought back to the States for trial--they were POWs, treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention as a result of their affiliation with a nation-state which was (in most cases) following the same conventions. (For you history buffs, some POWs were brought back to the States, but not for trial--only for detention until the war was over.)

In this case, the prisoners are again being held as prisoners of war (this despite the fact that they are not official representatives of a nation-state and are not in uniform per the Convention and are not following the Conventions themselves). As a result, they do not have access to US courts. As a retired military officer, I take exception to the accusation that military officers would not be adequate jurors. In a military trial, there is no one else who WOULD be an suitable juror. We receive training ad nauseum on the laws of armed conflict, the Geneva Convention, and so on.

Despite the media's portrayal of the military as a bunch of Apocalypse Now rejects, the vast majority of military officers are fine upstanding people that I was proud to serve with. To be honest, I'm getting tired of the implication (not necessarily here, but in general) that our nation's military is filled with incompetent, bloodthirsty psychopaths.

Believe me, I am as concerned as anyone else about the erosion of our freedoms in this country--but this is not one of those instances.
Click to expand...

Wow, nicely said:rawk:
 
tonyw said:
So, you would have been in favor of concentration camps, then? After all, what you're talking about is the same thing, just a different race. Substitute American Indian for Jew and it's exactly the same.

Just because the founding fathers made some mistakes doesn't mean we toss out crazy things like due process. And I'm not saying they need to come here to be tried, I'm fine with a military tribunal, but holding them forever without giving them some kind of forum to be tried in is ridiculous.

If we gave those to the Nazis, we can give them to al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

You're the one that brought up the founding fathers. I'm not exactly sure which mistakes you're talking about. The Indian massacre was probably unfortunate although those were rough times, trying to forge a new country with a native population that wasn't always accommodating. And Jefferson seemed right to send the US Navy and the Marines to take on the Barbary pirates. They were a bloodthirsty lot that gave our crews no mercy. Like I said, he tried to talk to them first.

I just thought you were implying that Washington and Jefferson would oppose how things were being handled today. Actually they would have probably left about 70 years ago when the word "democracy" started popping up on a regular basis. They probably would have said something like: "Well it was a nice try, where do you want to go next?"

But I don't see any need to rush to bring the Gitmo detainees to tribunals. For one I understand they have continued to extract intelligence and for two I would probably leave them there until hostilities ended, like we did the Germans.
 
flyover said:
But I don't see any need to rush to bring the Gitmo detainees to tribunals. For one I understand they have continued to extract intelligence and for two I would probably leave them there until hostilities ended, like we did the Germans.
Click to expand...

Come on, six years after they've been captured, do you think they've got any information that's not outdated still?

And there is never going to be an end to the fight against terrorism. It's a tactic. So if we are going to keep on fighting terrorists, we will NEVER try those people.

That's absurd and that's not what the United States is supposed to stand for.

Oh, yeah, how come nobody bothered to say anything about Jose Padilla?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top