06 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotBecause even though someone may be charged with a military action - HE MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY HAVE DONE ANYTHING WRONG!!!!
why shouldn't i presume he is guilty? am i a court of law? is zeeblebot saying he's committed an action the same as saying he's been convicted in a court of law?
if he is charged with a military action why shouldn't he be treated as an enemy combatant?
how could government work perfectly? isn't that why we have several LONG steps prior to execution of sentence?
You want to treat someone as an enemy combatant, even though it might just be Joe the Plumber who happened to stroll by one minute after the bomb went off.
Yes - we have do have several LONG steps, and AFTER all of those LONG steps have occurred and a conviction has taken place - we can THEN declare that such a person is an enemy combatant.
06 May 10
Originally posted by PsychoPawnhow is it unconstitutional to treat an act of war differently from a civilian crime?
He's a U.S. citizen. You obviously think that the constitution doesn't apply to all US citizens based solely on what kind of crime they are accused (NOT even convicted) of.
what use is it to apply pre-trial protections based on the status of a conviction yet to be obtained?
06 May 10
Originally posted by zeeblebot...and there's the problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant#Change_of_meaning_in_the_United_States
Change of meaning in the United States
Let's just change the meaning to whatever we want and then we just don't need to worry about those pesky things like "rights" or the "constitution". They just get in the way.
06 May 10
Originally posted by Melanerpes"what use is it to apply pre-trial protections based on the status of a conviction yet to be obtained?"
Because even though someone may be charged with a military action - HE MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY HAVE DONE ANYTHING WRONG!!!!
You want to treat someone as an enemy combatant, even though it might just be Joe the Plumber who happened to stroll by one minute after the bomb went off.
Yes - we have do have several LONG steps, and AFTER all of those LONG steps ...[text shortened]... and a conviction has taken place - we can THEN declare that such a person is an enemy combatant.
06 May 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotIs there any evidence this individual is a member of al-qaida as opposed to a being a lone wolf?
no uniform = not military?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant
Enemy combatant is a term historically referring to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war.[1][2] Prior to 2008, the definition was: "Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war." In the cas ...[text shortened]... aeda or of the Taliban being detained as an unlawful combatant by the United States.
He may be considered an enemy combatant, you're right about that, but does that mean he must therefore be charged under military law despite the fact he is a civilian? If thats the case then I have to say this is illogical.
06 May 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotI'm not suggesting that we apply pre-trial protections based on the status of a conviction yet to be obtained - since that status hasn't been obtained!!
how is it unconstitutional to treat an act of war differently from a civilian crime?
what use is it to apply pre-trial protections based on the status of a conviction yet to be obtained?
I'm saying we apply pre-trial protections based on the fact that we do not have a conviction.
I'm saying that as a U.S. citizen he is entitled to all the protections of the constitution including a trial by a jury of his peers and, as widely thought to be inferred from the constitution, the presumption of innocence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence#The_fundamental_right
Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship.
06 May 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotWhat country committed this act of war? What is your definition of an act of war that you are going under?
how is it unconstitutional to treat an act of war differently from a civilian crime?
what use is it to apply pre-trial protections based on the status of a conviction yet to be obtained?
Sounds pretty arbitrary.
06 May 10
I think the main reason we have a separate set of military rules is because in a traditional war, the sheer weight of numbers makes it impossible to deal with war suspects in the same way we'd deal with civilian suspects.
But groups like al-Qaeda don't present this sort of problem. The civilian court system is more than adequate to deal with the various small handfuls of terror suspects we usually come across. Perhaps in the future, we'll have to face a brigade of thousands of Talibanis invading the coastlines - but until this happens, terrorist groups are much more like a drug syndicate or the mob than they are like a foreign country with a large army.
As I said before, if we need to give law enforcement more tools to go after such organized groups, then by all means, give them all the tools they need.
06 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotWas Timothy McVeigh blowing up a building "military in nature"?
meaning he's committed a military action. why should we extend civilian protections to him?
do you think he himself would deny his action was military in nature?
Yes, I deny his action - leaving a civilian truck filled with explosives in a public area THE SAME THING MCVEIGH DID - was "military action". And no, your cut and pastes regarding the Bush administration's unilateral attempts to change IL definitions doesn't make me change my mind.
06 May 10
Originally posted by whodeyThere are federal terrorism laws on the books that provide for the death sentence or life imprisonment.
I think all this talk about military verses civilian trials are missing the mark. What we need on the books are laws that effectively deal with people who attempt or carry out mass killings? They should NEVER see the light of day, or am I missing something?