Senator Says Lifetime Terror Detentions 'Bad Idea' - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

boneheaddoctor · #16 01-03-2005, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old300D

Do you think they should be tried? Should evidence be required?

No.....its not a criminal matter.....they should be exicuted. No uniform attacking our troops...take them out and shoot them.

boneheaddoctor · #17 01-03-2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koop

Haven't they arrested a couple of suspected terrorist trying to come in from Canada.

CANADA IS HARBORING TERRORIST

Fuel the jets.

Any Illegal terrorist should be shot......if not toss them out of a airplane with a parachute......in the middle of the ocean......give them a chance to swim home.

koop · #18 01-03-2005, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Any Illegal terrorist should be shot......if not toss them out of a airplane with a parachute......in the middle of the ocean......give them a chance to swim home.

As opposed to a legal terrorist?

boneheaddoctor · #19 01-03-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by koop

As opposed to a legal terrorist?

THe US citizen terrorists should be tried for treason, THEN shot.

The Illegals should just be quickly shot.....before the ACLU tries to defend them.

Old300D · #20 01-03-2005, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

No.....its not a criminal matter.....they should be exicuted. No uniform attacking our troops...take them out and shoot them.

I know you don't believe war should have rules, but the fact remains that it does. Therefore it IS a criminal matter, and any combatant is legally entitled to a trial. If you don't believe me, just take a look at how the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration regarding Gitmo.

GermanStar · #21 01-03-2005, 05:30 PM

BTW, does anyone recall a declaration of war?

Botnst · #22 01-03-2005, 07:53 PM

It's the difficulty of fighting a new form of war. Back in the old days (WWII), when hostilities ended the prison camps were emptied and the soldiers repatriated. It took a couple of years for all of them to be cleared-up (some faced war crimes trails, with Hess taking what, 40 years?).

But what would Britain do with Bin Laden? No capital punishment in UK. Life in prison? What about one of his famous lieutenants? Life? What if we never catch Bin Laden and he continues dynamiting folks for 20 years and then his son takes over? When should we let these guys out who are not masterminds or leaders but are fanatical followers hoping to martyr themselves in downtown Topeka with a vial of Sarin? Or Picadilly? Or Avignon? Or Cairo (Egypt or Illinois, your pick). When are we gonna let that pilot-training goon, Moussaoui, go? When he says he's going to be nice and not hurt anybody?

I hate the idea of indefinite imprisonment without recourse to courts. I think its just plain wrong. But a viable alternative is....what?

It's easy to condemn the idea behind this senator's protestations. But an alternative that keeps people safe is not going to be an easy solution.

mikemover · #23 01-03-2005, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

It's the difficulty of fighting a new form of war. Back in the old days (WWII), when hostilities ended the prison camps were emptied and the soldiers repatriated. It took a couple of years for all of them to be cleared-up (some faced war crimes trails, with Hess taking what, 40 years?).

But what would Britain do with Bin Laden? No capital punishment in UK. Life in prison? What about one of his famous lieutenants? Life? What if we never catch Bin Laden and he continues dynamiting folks for 20 years and then his son takes over? When should we let these guys out who are not masterminds or leaders but are fanatical followers hoping to martyr themselves in downtown Topeka with a vial of Sarin? Or Picadilly? Or Avignon? Or Cairo (Egypt or Illinois, your pick). When are we gonna let that pilot-training goon, Moussaoui, go? When he says he's going to be nice and not hurt anybody?

I hate the idea of indefinite imprisonment without recourse to courts. I think its just plain wrong. But a viable alternative is....what?

It's easy to condemn the idea behind this senator's protestations. But an alternative that keeps people safe is not going to be an easy solution.

Yep. What he said.

Mike

aklim · #24 01-04-2005, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old300D

Do you think they should be tried? Should evidence be required?

No and No

boneheaddoctor · #25 01-04-2005, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old300D

I know you don't believe war should have rules, but the fact remains that it does. Therefore it IS a criminal matter, and any combatant is legally entitled to a trial. If you don't believe me, just take a look at how the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration regarding Gitmo.

The Supreme court has a bunch of Damned liberals trying to be more than they are constitutionally allowed to be.

THere is a declared war.........they are not shoplifters........

Old300D · #26 01-04-2005, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

The Supreme court has a bunch of Damned liberals trying to be more than they are constitutionally allowed to be.

THere is a declared war.........they are not shoplifters........

Now that's not a description of the Supreme Court I've heard in recent years. Liberal.

Only from the perspective of Atilla the Hun...

boneheaddoctor · #27 01-04-2005, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old300D

Now that's not a description of the Supreme Court I've heard in recent years. Liberal.

Only from the perspective of Atilla the Hun...

There are not 5 conservitives sitting on the bench.....................

crash9 · #28 01-04-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I hate the idea of indefinite imprisonment without recourse to courts. I think its just plain wrong. But a viable alternative is....what?

It’s probably pointless to even say it, but it’s unlikely to ever be truly safe in the way we thought we were if we try to maintain our same level of freedom and privacy. It’s also probably pointless to suggest that we show the Islamists enough respect to try and understand where they’re coming from.
At the top of their structure are knowledgeable people capable of reason that have a respected place in the hearts and minds of a huge percentage of the world’s population. They’ve twisted and turned their own beliefs into an ends justify the means mentality in order to turn loose and uneducated following that exists in hopeless conditions and seeks an honorable way out of this life.
It’s naive to think we can maintain “our way of life” of consumption and self interest the way we now do. The way in which we value our stuff and pleasure more than a spiritual life is at the root of their particular madness, and it’s not going to go away. If we simply recognize this, the world may have to consider that we are willing to lead in a different way. We’re being beaten badly at our own game by the developing nations, and beginning to understand that our business leaders have no loyalty to any national interests, but too their shareholders.
Things evolve so slowly that it’s easy to believe that in our own lifetimes we don’t need to consider more than to promote the status quo. We’ve had a huge advantage from coming out on the top of WWII, without the perspective of having the battlefield in our own backyard.
We may win by extending a hand, following the “Golden Rule”, and believing that silly biblical stuff about loving your enemies.

aklim · #29 01-04-2005, 01:46 PM

The "Golden Rule" is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. However, that is assuming that everyone is buying into that rule too. If that were true, we could fire almost all the judiciary branch because no one would be doing something wrong and we would be living in Utopia. Communism would have worked too.

Loving your enemies? Ancient Chinese saying: If man slap you on right cheek and you turn left cheek to him, soon you have two sore cheeks.

Botnst · #30 01-04-2005, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash9

It’s probably pointless to even say it, but it’s unlikely to ever be truly safe in the way we thought we were if we try to maintain our same level of freedom and privacy. It’s also probably pointless to suggest that we show the Islamists enough respect to try and understand where they’re coming from.
At the top of their structure are knowledgeable people capable of reason that have a respected place in the hearts and minds of a huge percentage of the world’s population. They’ve twisted and turned their own beliefs into an ends justify the means mentality in order to turn loose and uneducated following that exists in hopeless conditions and seeks an honorable way out of this life.
It’s naive to think we can maintain “our way of life” of consumption and self interest the way we now do. The way in which we value our stuff and pleasure more than a spiritual life is at the root of their particular madness, and it’s not going to go away. If we simply recognize this, the world may have to consider that we are willing to lead in a different way. We’re being beaten badly at our own game by the developing nations, and beginning to understand that our business leaders have no loyalty to any national interests, but too their shareholders.
Things evolve so slowly that it’s easy to believe that in our own lifetimes we don’t need to consider more than to promote the status quo. We’ve had a huge advantage from coming out on the top of WWII, without the perspective of having the battlefield in our own backyard.
We may win by extending a hand, following the “Golden Rule”, and believing that silly biblical stuff about loving your enemies.

Your first paragraph is exactly right. All the problems flow from having to resolve that with American concepts of jurisprudence. Unfortunately for us civilians, if those guys that were captured Al Quedistas in Afghanistan and now languish in Gitmo are set free, they will come after us. God is guiding them and they will obey God. Also unfortunately for us, our civil rules of evidence and fair play will eventually force their release. Very few of us think it is fair to indefinitely incarcerate people who were following orders in time of war or who were merely companions of people to may have done bad things.

For example, there's a Saudi national I read about who is being held after capture in Afghanistan. His anme came-up when cross-referencing hard drive information from two sources. Both implicate him as an Al Quedista. But he was not caught in war but in a raid and he was unarmed. They didn't kill him because we like to interrogate bad people.

Now if he were brought before civilian court, charges would be thrown-out faster than you can say, "Miranda".

But is it reasonable therefore, to keep that miserable bag of aqueous protein incarcerated indefinitely with never a chance at a fair trial?

This is exactly the same slippery slope that Argentinian was on during the early years of their civil war with the Tupamaros. How can we do better than they did? How can we keep our country safe but not become a military dictatorship?

I'm sure hoping somebody has a simple solution. I'm waiting.

Bot