Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 286

Thread: RGIII speaks out against Jason Collins

  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    War has other rules, and should have other rules. Combatants on the battlefield don't get a trial before they are killed. And btw, I've yet to hear from a single person who has suggested that any american citizen who has been killed under those circumstances thus far was not in fact guilty
    Of course you haven't.

    How could we, John Q. Public, know?

    In a nation where so many can't name a single Supreme Court Justice or pick the Vice President out of a lineup or name their own Congressmen and women or pick out Syria on a World Map.....are you expecting those same folks to aggressively question our Government when they say "yeah, we killed a guy, he was a terrorist, trust us, he was in :insert arab country here:, and was planning attacks! But we got him! Go us!"

    Put in the simplest of terms, we (the general public) have no choice but to accept the deceased citizens guilt as it's a de facto fait accompli. He's dead. We killed him. Our Govt. says he was X.

    How exactly would you expect anyone to counter that, given that the predictable answer form the Government is "sorry, that intel is a secret".

    Let me be clear, I make no claims of guilt or innocence of those citizens thus far killed, both the procliamed terrorists or their (also citizen) family members killed with them in some cases.

    I'm saying that Governmental power to kill citizens abroad as long as they claim their "enemy combatants", without even a trial in absentia to provide proof of guilt to the public, is the worst merger of criminal and war policy. It effectively takes a potential criminal act (i.e. planning attacks or planning enemy propaganda) and treats it as an immediate danger of millitary attack (war policy, shoot first, ask question later).

    Some would question if permitting the State to have it's cake, and kill it with drones too, is perhaps a poor path for us to take, not for those thus far killed, but for the precedence it sets for the future.

  2. #182
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    43,547
    [QUOTE=GuidoYaztremski;4884186]
    I understand what mainland means. So you maintain that people's lives that were lost on the "mainland" were somehow worth more than those Americans who died on an island? Or is it just Americans who live in a state are worth more than those who live in a place not yet declared a state?.
    The attack at Pearl harbor was on the Navy not solely on civilians like 9/11



    I would suggest, both.
    Just because you suggest doesn't make it factual

    Japanese determent was an unfortunate, but a quite understandable period in our history as a response to a devastating sneak attack on our own people. The Germans and Italians never attacked us on our own soil.
    Not that they didn't try though..

    Operation Pastorius

    The largest invasion of American soil during World War II came in the form of eight Nazi saboteurs sent to the United States on a doomed mission known as Operation Pastorius. The menóall naturalized American citizens who were living in Germany when the conflict beganówere tasked with sabotaging the war effort and demoralizing the civilian population through acts of terrorism. In June 1942, U-boats secretly dropped the two four-man crews on the coast of Amagansett, New York, and Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. Each team carried up to $84,000 in cash and enough explosives to wage a long campaign of sabotage.

    The men had orders to attack transport hubs, hydroelectric power plants and industrial facilities. But before a single act of sabotage could ever take place, the mission was compromised when George John Dasch, one of the saboteurs from the New York group, chose to turn himself in to the FBI. Dasch was heavily interrogated, and after two weeks the FBI successfully rounded up the remaining saboteurs. Six of the men were executed as spies, while Dasch and an accomplice were jailed for six years before being deported by President Harry Truman.

  3. #183
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cape Cod, MA
    Posts
    3,566
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Frankly, Miranda is irrelevant - given the evidence they already had, his statements are unnecessary for his conviction. So they should have interrogated him without Mirandizing until they had extracted every useful drop of intelligence
    People blew this Miranda thing out of proportion. You're right; Miranda is for interrogation information you want to use to prosecute. That's it. No requirement to read Miranda just because an arrest has happened. I'm of the belief that it's ok to ask questions during detention, get what you want, read Miranda, then ask again.

  4. #184
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    43,547
    Quote Originally Posted by stanner View Post
    People blew this Miranda thing out of proportion. You're right; Miranda is for interrogation information you want to use to prosecute. That's it. No requirement to read Miranda just because an arrest has happened. I'm of the belief that it's ok to ask questions during detention, get what you want, read Miranda, then ask again.
    You do realized Judges have freed gulity people over Miranda violations??

  5. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Arctor View Post
    Of course you haven't.

    How could we, John Q. Public, know?
    Yes, because nobody would report a claim by [insert target's relatives] that [target name] was not actually [terrorist affiliation] but was merely a innocent who was unfairly smeared/targeted. And they certainly wouldn't sue for damages arising out of the libel of tying [insert target name]'s memory to [insert unsavory terrorist activity for which he was killed].

    In a nation where so many can't name a single Supreme Court Justice or pick the Vice President out of a lineup or name their own Congressmen and women or pick out Syria on a World Map.....are you expecting those same folks to aggressively question our Government when they say "yeah, we killed a guy, he was a terrorist, trust us, he was in :insert arab country here:, and was planning attacks! But we got him! Go us!"
    I don't particularly care what low information citizens might or might not accept. I care about my own state of knowledge. And I'm still waiting for one credible shred of evidence to call into question Anwar al Awlaki's guilt, for instance.

    Put in the simplest of terms, we (the general public) have no choice but to accept the deceased citizens guilt as it's a de facto fait accompli. He's dead. We killed him. Our Govt. says he was X.

    How exactly would you expect anyone to counter that, given that the predictable answer form the Government is "sorry, that intel is a secret".

    Let me be clear, I make no claims of guilt or innocence of those citizens thus far killed, both the procliamed terrorists or their (also citizen) family members killed with them in some cases.
    And yet, that's the only relevant question.

    I'm saying that Governmental power to kill citizens abroad as long as they claim their "enemy combatants", without even a trial in absentia to provide proof of guilt to the public, is the worst merger of criminal and war policy. It effectively takes a potential criminal act (i.e. planning attacks or planning enemy propaganda) and treats it as an immediate danger of millitary attack (war policy, shoot first, ask question later).
    No. It's the only effective policy given the realities of the combat in question and the impossibility of capture. Anwar al Awlaki's American birth certificate ought entitle him to no greater protection than Osama bin Laden.

    Some would question if permitting the State to have it's cake, and kill it with drones too, is perhaps a poor path for us to take, not for those thus far killed, but for the precedence it sets for the future.
    Question away. From my perspective, the reality is that the State must have the power to kill those waging war against it whom it cannot feasibly capture - regardless of the nation of their birth. It's no different than any other military action, in which targets are killed without prior trial or evidentiary hearing (beyond the vetting that goes into the decision to target).

    (btw, the word is "precedent")

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by Savage69 View Post
    You do realized Judges have freed gulity people over Miranda violations??
    Only where the information obtained through the violation was unlawfully used at trial.

    Oh, and Miranda rights don't protect third parties. So if I arrest you, question you without Mirandizing, and you confess that you and your brothers committed the crime, I can't use your statements against you at trial.

    Your brothers, though, are screwed.

  7. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    I don't particularly care what low information citizens might or might not accept. I care about my own state of knowledge. And I'm still waiting for one credible shred of evidence to call into question Anwar al Awlaki's guilt, for instance.
    Innocent until proven guilty.

    Not guilty until proven innocent after he's already been killed without trial or publicly shared evidence.

    And yet, that's the only relevant question.
    Ends justify the means, eh?

    No. It's the only effective policy given the realities of the combat in question and the impossibility of capture. Anwar al Awlaki's American birth certificate ought entitle him to no greater protection than Osama bin Laden.
    I would favor a trial in absentia, where the evidence of guilt can be looked at publicly, a defender can be assigned to defend the citizen (weakly, to be sure, without the accused participation) and the death penalty laid down first if the crime they're accused of is proven, and warrants it under civil law.

    The same exception that police officers get would stand here, if the citizen in question is driving a van full of explosives right at law enforcement/U.S. soldiers, then the use of deadly force is appropriate.

    From my perspective, the reality is that the State must have the power to kill those waging war against it whom it cannot feasibly capture - regardless of the nation of their birth.
    Terrorism is not War. War can only be waged by a Nation State.

    Terrorism is a crime. A horrific crime, but a crime nonetheless.

    It's no different than any other military action
    Actually, it's only similarity with "Millitary Action" is the people die. If thats your barrier to entry for being "War", we have a hell of alot of "War" going on on the streets of the U.S. every day.

    (btw, the word is "precedent")
    Thank you Mr. Webster.

  8. #188
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cape Cod, MA
    Posts
    3,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Savage69 View Post
    You do realized Judges have freed gulity people over Miranda violations??






    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Only where the information obtained through the violation was unlawfully used at trial.
    Asked and answered.

  9. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Arctor View Post
    Innocent until proven guilty.

    Not guilty until proven innocent after he's already been killed without trial or publicly shared evidence.
    "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal maxim applying to criminals accused of a crime, apprehended, and standing before a court. It has no application whatsoever to warfare and the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the targets of military action. Which is as it should be.

    Ends justify the means, eh?
    No. The means are irrelevant. If he's actually innocent, I don't care if he's killed by drone strike or in hand to hand combat. And if he's guilty, I don't care if he's killed by drone strike or hand to hand combat. The means of his death is irrelevant; the only relevant question is whether the killing (by whatever means accomplished) was just under the laws of war - that is, reasonable, necessary, and no legitimate alternative (capture/surrender) was available.

    I would favor a trial in absentia, where the evidence of guilt can be looked at publicly, a defender can be assigned to defend the citizen (weakly, to be sure, without the accused participation) and the death penalty laid down first if the crime they're accused of is proven, and warrants it under civil law.
    1) That would be a show trial.

    2) What in the world does civil law have to do with it?

    3) This isn't the death penalty. It's war. Confusing the justice system (which is there to address crimes) and the rules of war (which address combat) isn't useful.

    The same exception that police officers get would stand here, if the citizen in question is driving a van full of explosives right at law enforcement/U.S. soldiers, then the use of deadly force is appropriate.
    And if the citizen in question is merely driving the explosives to another combatant to use? Your proposal is that al Qaeda and all other combatants ought to use American citizens to ferry ammo to the battlefield, since those citizens can't be attacked without a trial first

    Terrorism is not War. War can only be waged by a Nation State.
    False, both as a matter of international law (insurgents, guerrillas, and other non-state actors can and do wage war, and their actions are governed by the laws of war) and practical reality.

    Terrorism is a crime. A horrific crime, but a crime nonetheless.

    Actually, it's only similarity with "Millitary Action" is the people die. If thats your barrier to entry for being "War", we have a hell of alot of "War" going on on the streets of the U.S. every day.
    LOL. War is the application of military force/violence as part of a concerted campaign with a distinct territorial or political/policy goal. It can be between nation states, between a nation state and non-state actors, or simply between non-state actors, at least in general parlance ("gang war" ring a bell?). The customary international law and treaties governing war apply to conflicts between nation states or, expressly, between a nation state and non-state actors.

    Put very simply, you are wrong. How much time have you spent studying the actual laws of war? 5 minutes with the text of the Geneva Conventions
    should make this abundantly clear.

    Thank you Mr. Webster.
    Apologies. I thought you might want to know you were misusing the term. But hey, if you'd prefer to go on mangling it, don't let me stop you.

  10. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainejet View Post
    NONSENSE. You are choosing to ignore the precedent set by the supreme court. They can and have held criminals as enemy combatants in the past. The precedent is there.

    This to say nothing about how much good this could/would have done for the safety of the country. This is also a new world we are in. Terror attacks come from everywhere including american citizens as the Tsarnaev brothers demonstrated just a few weeks ago.
    The only thing that has changed about the world is a 24 hour news cycle without morals, HD televisions and a camera in everyone's pocket.

    Boston wasn't the first city to be bombed. But it was the first one to be caught on video and replayed ad-nauseam.

  11. #191
    [QUOTE=Savage69;4884218]
    Quote Originally Posted by GuidoYaztremski View Post

    The attack at Pearl harbor was on the Navy not solely on civilians like 9/11





    Just because you suggest doesn't make it factual


    Not that they didn't try though..

    Operation Pastorius

    The largest invasion of American soil during World War II came in the form of eight Nazi saboteurs sent to the United States on a doomed mission known as Operation Pastorius. The men—all naturalized American citizens who were living in Germany when the conflict began—were tasked with sabotaging the war effort and demoralizing the civilian population through acts of terrorism. In June 1942, U-boats secretly dropped the two four-man crews on the coast of Amagansett, New York, and Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. Each team carried up to $84,000 in cash and enough explosives to wage a long campaign of sabotage.

    The men had orders to attack transport hubs, hydroelectric power plants and industrial facilities. But before a single act of sabotage could ever take place, the mission was compromised when George John Dasch, one of the saboteurs from the New York group, chose to turn himself in to the FBI. Dasch was heavily interrogated, and after two weeks the FBI successfully rounded up the remaining saboteurs. Six of the men were executed as spies, while Dasch and an accomplice were jailed for six years before being deported by President Harry Truman.
    C'mon. I know your not that obtuse.

    Do you really believe that civilians weren't affected, and killed, at Pearl Harbor? Are you REALLY comparing 8 German soldiers who failed to do anything, to the Japanese attack who numbered in the thousands and virtually crippled our western fleet and stunned a nation?

    If your point is that the face of warfare has changed significantly since 1941 to today, okay fine. We found common ground.

  12. #192
    Thou shall not hike the ball to a gay QB for he might rub his hands on you anus and sin thy father
    Last edited by Sec340; 05-02-2013 at 06:08 PM.

  13. #193
    Can we:

    A) Change the title of the thread (I thought it has been established that RGIII wasn't talking about Jason Collins at all)

    B) Move this to Politics?

  14. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by Sec340 View Post
    Thou shall not hike the ball to a gay QB for he might rub his hands on you anus and sin thy father
    Is it funnier in really REALLY big letters?

  15. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by GuidoYaztremski View Post

    C'mon. I know your not that obtuse.

  16. #196
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    43,547
    [QUOTE=GuidoYaztremski;4884319]
    Quote Originally Posted by Savage69 View Post

    C'mon. I know your not that obtuse.

    Do you really believe that civilians weren't affected, and killed, at Pearl Harbor? Are you REALLY comparing 8 German soldiers who failed to do anything, to the Japanese attack who numbered in the thousands and virtually crippled our western fleet and stunned a nation? If your point is that the face of warfare has changed significantly since 1941 to today, okay fine. We found common ground.
    Yes the face of war has changed look what some 9/11 hijackers did with box cutters.. Civilians are always affected even when their not the target..

  17. #197
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    43,547
    Quote Originally Posted by AFCEastFan View Post
    +1 First thought I had as well..

  18. #198
    good for rg3. we are being held hostage by these bozos who make it criminal to call a spade a spade. the whole jason collins is a non issue. he was obviously going through some sort of personal crisis and felt he had to come out. the talking heads, being the scummy people that they are, chose to make it a big deal. but someone should tell collins that he's no bill russel when it comes to basketball skills and he is an nba irrelevant player.

    the bottom line is that if coming out makes him happy, great. i don't need it shoved in my face.

  19. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by Savage69 View Post

    Yes the face of war has changed look what some 9/11 hijackers did with box cutters.. Civilians are always affected even when their not the target..
    They're.
















  20. #200
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    43,547
    [QUOTE=GuidoYaztremski;4884368]
    Quote Originally Posted by Savage69 View Post

    They're.











    I know but it's a joke between me and my dead uncle..

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