Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: If Bin Laden is apprehended, does he have constitutional rights?

  1. #21
    I'm trying my best to come around on this whole "Terrorism is a Civil Legal Issue" ideal of enforcement and the associated "We must live up to our moral highground and give them rights and not mistreat them, etc, etc, etc." theory of Anti-Terrorism. I really am. I can understand the point of view of many of my more liberal friends on this issue. And while my bloodlust may not be quite satiated, I can see the potential wisdom of their positions.

    What I can't seem to get past is this......treating Terrorism as a Police Issue, with Cops and Warrants, and Rights and Trials, does any of that stop future Terrorism? IS there anything that does or can do that?

    ****, I don't know. All I know is I want to be safe, and I damn sure (still to this day) do not feel safe living where I do. I know most don;t care about that at all, and so be it, but when it comes to my passion in the War on Islamic Terrorism, it comes down to this simple ideal; I believe that Islamic Fundemantalist Terrorism wants to kill us all, and will continue to work to do so, and the only reason they havn't been more successful is luck, just pure unadulterated luck. And luck never lasts.

    I never want to see a day where a Nuke is detonated in DC. I don't want that to be the last thing I see. I have far too much to live for.

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2589895]LOL!! :D

    Good one :thumbup:[/QUOTE]

    Thx. I try to keep it colorful.

  3. #23
    This thread is retarded. Rules are rules. If we ever get Bin Laden, he will fry, but he will fry the right way.

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;2589908]

    This thread is retarded. Rules are rules.[/QUOTE]Yeah but there's a big difference, Obama is celebrating that SC decision

    He thinks it was the right call

    He won't fight it, he embraces it

    To Obama that decision and that approach to fighting terrorism {as crime, not war} is [COLOR="Blue"][B]change we can believe in[/B][/COLOR]

  5. #25
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2589900]I'm trying my best to come around on this whole "Terrorism is a Civil Legal Issue" ideal of enforcement and the associated "We must live up to our moral highground and give them rights and not mistreat them, etc, etc, etc." theory of Anti-Terrorism. I really am. I can understand the point of view of many of my more liberal friends on this issue. And while my bloodlust may not be quite satiated, I can see the potential wisdom of their positions.

    What I can't seem to get past is this......treating Terrorism as a Police Issue, with Cops and Warrants, and Rights and Trials, does any of that stop future Terrorism? IS there anything that does or can do that?

    ****, I don't know. All I know is I want to be safe, and I damn sure (still to this day) do not feel safe living where I do. I know most don;t care about that at all, and so be it, but when it comes to my passion in the War on Islamic Terrorism, it comes down to this simple ideal; I believe that Islamic Fundemantalist Terrorism wants to kill us all, and will continue to work to do so, and the only reason they havn't been more successful is luck, just pure unadulterated luck. And luck never lasts.

    I never want to see a day where a Nuke is detonated in DC. I don't want that to be the last thing I see. I have far too much to live for.[/QUOTE]


    Nobody is arguing for a 100% policing approach. That's a GOP soundbite with no basis in reality.

    If you look at Obama's platform, he's advocating a military offensive in Afghanistan, keeping some troops in iraq to conduct strikes on terrorist groups, protect our embassy and to train Iraqi troops. He's also advocated striking inside Pakistan without its permission when we have actionable intelligence on high-value targets (something he was mocked for up until the moment it became clear that we were already killing terrorists doing it.)

    That said, you also need to have a legal aparatus set up to deal with terrorists, and to secure convictions of terrorists in a way that is legal, regarded as legitimate internationally, and that protects the rights of innocent people who will inevitably get swept up into the system.

    And policing/investigating does have some pre-emptive value as well. We did stop the Y2K LAX plot that way.

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2589916]Yeah but there's a big difference, Obama is celebrating that SC decision

    He thinks it was the right call

    He won't fight it, he embraces it

    To Obama that decision and that approach to fighting terrorism {as crime, not war} is [COLOR="Blue"][B]change we can believe in[/B][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

    Ham you have a problem with Obama but have no problem with the fact Bush couldn't find this cat for 8 years?

    How come you hold Obama to a higher standard than the current Prez?

    Isn't competance more important than belief system? you would rather have incompetant man who believes the right thing but can't get anything done? or a competant man who believes something you don't?

    answer honestly please - I know you don't have me on "ignore" :)

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2589918]

    Nobody is arguing for a 100% policing approach. That's a GOP soundbite with no basis in reality.

    If you look at Obama's platform, he's advocating a military offensive in Afghanistan, keeping some troops in iraq to conduct strikes on terrorist groups, protect our embassy and to train Iraqi troops. He's also advocated striking inside Pakistan without its permission when we have actionable intelligence on high-value targets (something he was mocked for up until the moment it became clear that we were already killing terrorists doing it.)

    That said, you also need to have a legal aparatus set up to deal with terrorists, and to secure convictions of terrorists in a way that is legal, regarded as legitimate internationally, and that protects the rights of innocent people who will inevitably get swept up into the system.

    And policing/investigating does have some pre-emptive value as well. We did stop the Y2K LAX plot that way.[/QUOTE]Perhaps you forgot, but we already tried treating Islamic terrorism like a law enforcement issue, that was the pre 9/11 way of doing business, or in Barack Obama's words, that was [B][U]the failed policies of the past[/U][/B]
    Last edited by Green Jets & Ham; 06-18-2008 at 04:27 PM.

  8. #28
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2589918]Nobody is arguing for a 100% policing approach. That's a GOP soundbite with no basis in reality.[/QUOTE]

    See Nuu, this is my issue with you (the general "you" i.e. the Left, not you personally). It isn't a damn soundbite, it's what I hear every time I hear Democrats talk about how they would stop Terrorism.

    They talk of Diplomacy, which comes across to me as bribery, us giving them what they want so they'll leave us be. They talk of understadning, as if the mentallity of Islamic Fundamentalism and Terror wouldn't exist if we just tried harder to see their side? They talk of Terrorism being a legal and polic issue, not a Millitary issue, than we can stop terrorism by doing what we did after the WTC Bombing, trials, cops, courts, jails.

    These aren't thing I hear from Rush. They are things I hear when I hear Democrats talk, on CSPAN, on Air America, and yes, on Conservatibe Radio too.

    You can tell me I am ignorant, but if I am so it one hell of alot of Americas Nuu.

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2589929]

    Ham you have a problem with Obama but have no problem with the fact Bush couldn't find this cat for 8 years?

    How come you hold Obama to a higher standard than the current Prez?

    Isn't competance more important than belief system? you would rather have incompetant man who believes the right thing but can't get anything done? or a competant man who believes something you don't?

    answer honestly please - I know you don't have me on "ignore" :)[/QUOTE]Bit, I don't believe we should ever treat Islamic terrorism like a law enforcement issue again .. been there, done that .. and IMO that approach, more than anything else, led to 9/11

    Yeah I'm disappointed Bush has not killed Bin Laden, its his biggest failure in my book

    We have to kill that son of a whore, case closed

    But I'm totally on board with the WOT, and by that I mean treating Islamic terrorism like war and not crime
    Last edited by Green Jets & Ham; 06-18-2008 at 04:24 PM.

  10. #30
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,805
    The question is not about any one persons rights. The question is does the GOVERNMENT have the right to suspend Habeas Corpus.

    On a similar note the bill of rights are about LIMITING the GOVERNMENT'S power not about giving INVIDUALS rights. The Bill of rights say what the government cannot do.

    Read up:


    [URL="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html"]http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html[/URL]

    [QUOTE]Section 9 - Limits on Congress

    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    [B]The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.[/B]
    No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.[/QUOTE]

  11. #31
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2589943]Bit, I don't believe we should ever treat Islamic terrorism like a law enforcement issue again .. been there, done that .. and IMO that approach, more than anything else, led to 9/11

    Yeah I'm disppointed Bush has not killed Bin Laden, its his biggest failure in my book

    We have to kill that son of a whore, case closed .. but I'm totally on board with the WOT, and by that I mean treating Islamic terrorism like war and not crime[/QUOTE]

    Ham you aren't gonna like this but it's impossible wage war with a tactic.

    In fact it's impossible for a nation to declare war on anything but another nation.

    We invaded Iraq we didn't invade Terrorism.

    We might want to go to war on Terror but it's impossible.

    Terrorism is in fact a criminal situation. Nations go to war, individuals commit crimes.

    ps 15 of 19 9-11 bombers were Saudis, if Terrorism was an act of war we invaded the wrong place.
    Last edited by bitonti; 06-18-2008 at 04:25 PM.

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2589941]See Nuu, this is my issue with you (the general "you" i.e. the Left, not you personally). It isn't a damn soundbite, it's what I hear every time I hear Democrats talk about how they would stop Terrorism.

    They talk of Diplomacy, which comes across to me as bribery, us giving them what they want so they'll leave us be. They talk of understadning, as if the mentallity of Islamic Fundamentalism and Terror wouldn't exist if we just tried harder to see their side? They talk of Terrorism being a legal and polic issue, not a Millitary issue, than we can stop terrorism by doing what we did after the WTC Bombing, trials, cops, courts, jails.

    These aren't thing I hear from Rush. They are things I hear when I hear Democrats talk, on CSPAN, on Air America, and yes, on Conservatibe Radio too.

    You can tell me I am ignorant, but if I am so it one hell of alot of Americas Nuu.[/QUOTE]

    First of all, you are conflating diplomacy with appeasement. There is nothing in the act of communicating with someone that necessarily concedes anything. If you go back and read about the history of appeasement and Neville Chamberlain, the act of talking to Hitler had nothing to do with it. It was the massive concessions that were made to him that were the crime.

    Second of all, terrorism cannot be fought entirely as a military or policing issue. It has to be fought both ways. Finding and seizing the funding trails for these terrorist groups is about 1000x more harmful to them than killing 1,000 of their fanatics on a battlefield. That cannot be done with tanks. And, yes, there's a military component, too.

    You need the assistance of allies, both in the polcing side and in terms of battlefield troops.

    You need a free-flowing dialogue with states who may not be good guys. The middle east in full of conflicting agendas and we may be able to exploit those if we keep our ears open and make our sticks and carrots clear. We won the Cold War in large part by flipping China against Russia. That diplomatic divide and conquer approach isn't a bad model, imo.

    And, of course, you need a credible threat of military force. Without that, diplomacy tends to be less effective.

    My main criticism of Bush is that he's pursued an unbalanced strategy that discounts --even mocks-- many of these crucial aspects of fighting terrorism.

  13. #33
    [quote=Warfish;2589900]I'm trying my best to come around on this whole "Terrorism is a Civil Legal Issue" ideal of enforcement and the associated "We must live up to our moral highground and give them rights and not mistreat them, etc, etc, etc." theory of Anti-Terrorism. I really am. I can understand the point of view of many of my more liberal friends on this issue. And while my bloodlust may not be quite satiated, I can see the potential wisdom of their positions.

    What I can't seem to get past is this......treating Terrorism as a Police Issue, with Cops and Warrants, and Rights and Trials, does any of that stop future Terrorism? IS there anything that does or can do that?[/quote]

    Fisher, where I think distinctions need to be made is between how you fight terror generally - and in that arena, treating it as isolated or even connected criminal incidents, rather than as a war fought by criminal means, is a huge mistake - and what you do with people you capture in the course of that fight.
    Last edited by doggin94it; 06-18-2008 at 05:28 PM.

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2590035]First of all, you are conflating diplomacy with appeasement. There is nothing in the act of communicating with someone that necessarily concedes anything. If you go back and read about the history of appeasement and Neville Chamberlain, the act of talking to Hitler had nothing to do with it. It was the massive concessions that were made to him that were the crime.

    Second of all, terrorism cannot be fought entirely as a military or policing issue. It has to be fought both ways. Finding and seizing the funding trails for these terrorist groups is about 1000x more harmful to them than killing 1,000 of their fanatics on a battlefield. That cannot be done with tanks. And, yes, there's a military component, too.

    You need the assistance of allies, both in the polcing side and in terms of battlefield troops.

    You need a free-flowing dialogue with states who may not be good guys. The middle east in full of conflicting agendas and we may be able to exploit those if we keep our ears open and make our sticks and carrots clear. We won the Cold War in large part by flipping China against Russia. That diplomatic divide and conquer approach isn't a bad model, imo.

    And, of course, you need a credible threat of military force. Without that, diplomacy tends to be less effective.

    My main criticism of Bush is that he's pursued an unbalanced strategy that discounts --even mocks-- many of these crucial aspects of fighting terrorism.[/QUOTE]




    bravo...I think you just tied J5 with another post of the year..

    two in one day..

  15. #35
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2589943]Bit, I don't believe we should ever treat Islamic terrorism like a law enforcement issue again .. been there, done that .. and IMO that approach, more than anything else, led to 9/11

    Yeah I'm disappointed Bush has not killed Bin Laden, its his biggest failure in my book

    We have to kill that son of a whore, case closed

    But I'm totally on board with the WOT, and by that I mean treating Islamic terrorism like war and not crime[/QUOTE]

    I agree with your sentiment hammy, but I do not ever want my government to be as reactionary and lawless as I would be.

    Forget the fact that you are being disingenuos with stating that it would be treated like a law-enforcement trial akin to those you see in your average american court.

    And regardless of how you or I feel about the severity of this war on terror it isn't a war in the real sense of the word, and therefore can not be waged in the sense of a traditional war.

    I wish it could, it would be much easier, but it can't.

    We can't kill this problem away as much as you may think we can....it won't work.....we have to be smarter than that, or this war on terror will be a never-ending conflict that will ultimately result in far worse consequences than if we were to approach this as a criminal offense and not a war.

    Because they won't surrender, and they aren't only in one country.

    attack the source my man, kill the cash flow....that is the only way to make any headway in this war.....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us