Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Warfare Warfare Military Forum - For topics and discussions related to combat and peace efforts


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 28th, 2009, 05:26 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Zack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,766
Crime or war?

A terrorist attempted to blow up an airliner on Christmas.



Is he a criminal or a prisoner of war?



Should he have the rights of a US citizen to remain silent?



Should he be tried in a military or civilian court?



If the terrorist that attempted to blow up the plane deserves US constitutional rights then why don't the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan deserve the same exact rights? Shouldn't we prove these terrorists on the battlefield are actually terrorists prior to targeting them as guilty e.g. a UAV targeted a group of "suspected terrorists" killing all in the dwelling.



Can the argument be made that one is a civil crime and the other is a case of war?
Zack is offline  
Old December 28th, 2009, 05:58 AM   #2
Nightrider
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack
A terrorist attempted to blow up an airliner on Christmas.



Is he a criminal or a prisoner of war? Any terrorist who attempts to blow up a plane on Christmas is a war criminal to the highest degree and should be treated as such. We are at war with violent jihadist extremists - they are at war with us. It's just my opinion that it's time to stop playing nice with these fascist lunatics and give them what they deserve - a slow, painful, tortuous death....



Should he have the rights of a US citizen to remain silent? He denied himself any rights when he attempted to take the lives of the innocent people on that plane - I wonder what those passengers would have to say. After all, this asshole attempted to take away their rights - he should thusly have his taken away.



Should he be tried in a military or civilian court? Definitely a military court - like I said, we are at war and playing nice is not an option. Besides, the military (I believe) would give him his just punishment.... Furthermore, why should the American taxpayers pay for a civilian trial, just to give him a stage to tell us all what he thinks about us - who knows, maybe even a stage to gain sympathy from some whackjobs out there? No, the military will know what to do with him - I pray that he winds up in a true hell on Earth... Death is too light a punishment - he should be tortured slowly for many years (I know that sounds harsh - but we have to deter others from committing/attempting to commit similar heinous acts - the only way to do this is to hand him over to the military)...



If the terrorist that attempted to blow up the plane deserves US constitutional rights then why don't the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan deserve the same exact rights? Shouldn't we prove these terrorists on the battlefield are actually terrorists prior to targeting them as guilty e.g. a UAV targeted a group of "suspected terrorists" killing all in the dwelling. I say GOOD to that last statement about the UAV. Frankly, I believe that we should hit MECCA with everything we have the next time they even THINK about hitting us. I know, that will never happen with the bedwetting libs running things right now, but one can still hope... Sadly, the US has the power to end the war on terror, but not the will to use it. The Jihadists, on the other hand, have the will but not the power. That is why they may even be winning. Which brings me to my point - this war on terror will never end until we do the same thing we did to end WW2. I just hope we aren't attacked on US soil again, although it is my belief that we will be....



Can the argument be made that one is a civil crime and the other is a case of war? Please see my comments above - my point is that all terrorist acts - committed by violent Islamic fascist extremists - are a case of war. When jihad is waged against us, we have every right to go after them with everything we have. I just wish that Obama and his friends believed that.


Thanks for your post, Zack.
 
Old December 28th, 2009, 06:18 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
mikelew007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack
A terrorist attempted to blow up an airliner on Christmas.



Is he a criminal or a prisoner of war?



Should he have the rights of a US citizen to remain silent?



Should he be tried in a military or civilian court?



If the terrorist that attempted to blow up the plane deserves US constitutional rights then why don't the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan deserve the same exact rights? Shouldn't we prove these terrorists on the battlefield are actually terrorists prior to targeting them as guilty e.g. a UAV targeted a group of "suspected terrorists" killing all in the dwelling.



Can the argument be made that one is a civil crime and the other is a case of war?


It'd give us an excuse to invade Nigeria, they shall pay for clogging our in-boxes with false promises of treasure! To arms!
mikelew007 is offline  
Old December 28th, 2009, 06:54 AM   #4
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
He is a criminal. And should be treated like one.
waitingtables is offline  
Old December 28th, 2009, 06:55 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Zack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,766
Nightrider I agree we need to approach the terrorists on a different level than what we've been doing. I think we should address all of the people that follow the religion of Islam and tell them up front that we have no problem with them or their religion but do find the use of terrorism unacceptable. We should demand that the people that follow Islam must divorce themselves from the followers of perverted Islam using terrorism. We should tell them that we do not see terrorists as religious people and therefore we will remove any possibility of religion related with Islam from them upon capture or death... how could we do this, by desecrating their bodies with methods of accepted removal from the religion, force feed pork or give blood transfusions of Jewish blood to captured terrorists and burying dead terrorists under hog intestines. Since peaceful Islam doesn't condone terrorism they should have no problem with such actions taken against terrorists...any person that has a problem with these actions should be considered a terrorist sympathiser and be treated equal to a terrorist. If, in fact all of Islam would develop such a stance of supporting terrorist methods then NUKE them.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelew007
It'd give us an excuse to invade Nigeria, they shall pay for clogging our in-boxes with false promises of treasure! To arms!
You never answered the questions.
Zack is offline  
Old December 28th, 2009, 07:10 AM   #6
Retired
 
highway80west's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 17,108
Right now, he is a terrorist. He is no prisoner of war, and he never will be. No judge or jury, and even a dumb pro bono attorney won't agree that this Nigerian is a POW. The man will be tried in a federal court, and I would hope that he will be sent to Supermax in Colorado. I read that the most he can get is 40 years, which means he will be in his 60's when he is released.



Now, Janet Napolitano says that security failed. Well, it all started in Nigeria, didn't it? And now more stricter security measures are in place in the USA. Geezes Louise. When are we going to fly the friendly skies again?



I plan to take a trip in June, and must we all get to the airport THREE hours before flight time??? I had planned to take a shorter plane trip late next month to an Arizona city, but I think I will save myself the trouble of going through security and drive instead. It is less than 400 miles. Flying would take an hour and ten minutes. Driving would take over six hours through the desert, although it won't be as bad in winter time.



So with all the new security measures in place, it would be like flying a Soviet-era jetliner. Not the planes they built, but for the way we have to fly. Stay in your seat for the last hour, even if you feel like to have to go to the bathroom to take a nature's call. Post armed guards inside the cabin, with their machine guns, ready to take action right away. What is going to happen when a mom or dad have to change the diapers on their babies? Do it in the seat?



Now Obama really have to go after Al Qaeda all over the world. Al Qaeda is like African killer bees infiltrating the ol' honey bees we know of.



They are not going to deny me the right to fly to see my friends or loved ones.
highway80west is offline  
Old December 28th, 2009, 08:27 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
mikelew007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack
You never answered the questions.


Was I supposed to?



Fine, but if you don't like my answers that's your problem lol.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack
A terrorist attempted to blow up an airliner on Christmas.

Yup, I think that one was obvious.



Is he a criminal or a prisoner of war?

Criminal, I don't recall us being at war with Nigeria. Just because you call him a terrorist doesn't by default make him a war criminal.



Should he have the rights of a US citizen to remain silent?

He committed the crime inside the United States, so yes should have rights.
You may not like it, but that's the price we pay to preserve our own values.



Should he be tried in a military or civilian court?

Civilian, his crime was on US soil and we should treat him as a criminal who violated US law. We don't ship illegal immigrants to secret detention camps after they were caught crossing the border.



We've successfully tried hundreds of suspected terrorists in civilian courts and sent them off to prison
. We just recently tried, convicted, sentenced, and carried out the death penalty to John Muhammed, the DC sniper. We also gave multiple life sentences to his accomplice, both men were tried in US courts BTW.



If the terrorist that attempted to blow up the plane deserves US constitutional rights then why don't the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan deserve the same exact rights? Shouldn't we prove these terrorists on the battlefield are actually terrorists prior to targeting them as guilty e.g. a UAV targeted a group of "suspected terrorists" killing all in the dwelling.
Except that we're not inside the United States when it comes to matters like that.



I say if they're been known to commit acts of terrorism and/or have been shooting at our troops, you know being actual enemy combatants, have at them.
If we can't capture them, if they don't surrender, kill 'em. We're engaged in a war in Afghanistan, the Islamic extremists that are in that country are the enemy correct?
mikelew007 is offline  
Old December 28th, 2009, 09:00 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Zack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by highway80west
Right now, he is a terrorist. He is no prisoner of war, and he never will be. No judge or jury, and even a dumb pro bono attorney won't agree that this Nigerian is a POW. The man will be tried in a federal court, and I would hope that he will be sent to Supermax in Colorado. I read that the most he can get is 40 years, which means he will be in his 60's when he is released.
This is an illogical statement. Logic and reason dictates we are at war with terrorism considering we have troops deployed in Afghanistan and have used lethal force against suspected terrorists in Yemen and Pakistan without protections of US constitutional rights for the terrorists.



Why a civilian trial for a terrorist when the same terrorist located in the above nations would only be given a hearing of the incoming Hellfire missile? So, we are indiscriminately killing "suspected" terrorists in whatever country we find them in without any protections of law outside the International Law of War that says an unlawful combatant may be killed.



Are our action in areas outside of the US territory lawful in your mind? If so then if a or all the unlawful combatants from those areas were to board an aircraft and enter the US would they be criminals or Unlawful Combatants now operating in US territory? Let's say there are 10,000 terrorists world wide that we are employing US forces against and they were all to come to America from Canada, Mexico or ride in on a raft ... would you treat them equal to a Mexican that entered the US illegally? Would you deploy the Marines, army, navy, coast guard to detain them or federal marshals and local law enforcement? Please explain how your logic works that gives this terrorist (you said he was a terrorist) that simply manages to be physically located in US territory US citizens rights?
Zack is offline  
Old December 28th, 2009, 09:08 AM   #9
Retired
 
highway80west's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 17,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack
This is an illogical statement. Logic and reason dictates we are at war with terrorism considering we have troops deployed in Afghanistan and have used lethal force against suspected terrorists in Yemen and Pakistan without protections of US constitutional rights for the terrorists.



Why a civilian trial for a terrorist when the same terrorist located in the above nations would only be given a hearing of the incoming Hellfire missile? So, we are indiscriminately killing "suspected" terrorists in whatever country we find them in without any protections of law outside the International Law of War that says an unlawful combatant may be killed.



Are our action in areas outside of the US territory lawful in your mind? If so then if a or all the unlawful combatants from those areas were to board an aircraft and enter the US would they be criminals or Unlawful Combatants now operating in US territory? Let's say there are 10,000 terrorists world wide that we are employing US forces against and they were all to come to America from Canada, Mexico or ride in on a raft ... would you treat them equal to a Mexican that entered the US illegally? Would you deploy the Marines, army, navy, coast guard to detain them or federal marshals and local law enforcement? Please explain how your logic works that gives this terrorist (you said he was a terrorist) that simply manages to be physically located in US territory US citizens rights?


If you think my statement is illogical, Zack, then a good many of us here on DTT (except Wingnut) will find your post more illogical than mine's.



Yeah, we are at war with terrorists, but we are not at war with Nigeria, the terrorist's home country. Have we ever declared war on Nigeria? I don't think so.



Terrorists can come from any country like Russia, Iraq, Somalia, Uganda, Afghanistan, Antarctica, Burma, Mars, etc.



Are we at war with Russia, Antarctica, Burma, Mars? No. Are we fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Sure we are. Yet the terrorist did not from Iraq or Afghanistan, Zack, did he?
highway80west is offline  
Old December 28th, 2009, 09:48 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Zack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by highway80west
If you think my statement is illogical, Zack, then a good many of us here on DTT (except Wingnut) will find your post more illogical than mine's.



Yeah, we are at war with terrorists, but we are not at war with Nigeria, the terrorist's home country. Have we ever declared war on Nigeria? I don't think so.



Terrorists can come from any country like Russia, Iraq, Somalia, Uganda, Afghanistan, Antarctica, Burma, Mars, etc.



Are we at war with Russia, Antarctica, Burma, Mars? No. Are we fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Sure we are. Yet the terrorist did not from Iraq or Afghanistan, Zack, did he?
OK, this is getting to the heart of the matter, the US declared war on radical Muslim terrorists giving the commander in chief (that's the war time term for the president as leader of all the military) to use military force against terrorist or any nation that provides safe harbor for terrorists any place in the world. Perhaps you missed the news but the terrorists that caused the declaration of war were not from Afghanistan or Iraq but were from Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was providing safe harbor to terrorist, they were offered no hostile actions if they turn over or allow us to capture the terrorists living among them... they refused and as a result we went to war with Afghanistan for what? For providing safe harbor to terrorists, terrorists are not nation bound so we need not declare war on every nation that has a mom that squeezes out a baby that grows up to become a terrorist. We go to the government where our intelligence agencies learn terrorists exist and ask for cooperation in their capture, they refuse then that state (nation) becomes an enemy state subject to war under the congressional mandate.



Rule number one of military war action is know your enemy. Our enemy is the terrorist activity led by Osama Bin Laden, the terrorist activity is designed to destroy American government by whatever means possible, employing terror attacks as the know means... The objective is the destruction of the the US government and forced agreement of all American citizens to convert to Muslim beliefs as defined by team Bin Laden... All infidels will be killed.



So, we in America have crime, we have domestic terrorism, which is a domestic crime but activities of our known enemy are acts of war, acts of war described by the Use of Force authorization to fight the war on terror we are now fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and nations around the world. Clearly, to be identified as a warrior of team Bin Laden would be determination that the action is not a crime but rather an act of war. The asshole in Ft. Hood TX used Muslim terror tactics so his action were acts of war, the terrorist on the plane used Muslim terrorist actions so his actions are acts of war. The Muslim terrorist don't wear uniforms but act out the ideology that places them in the camp of Bin Laden... why is this so hard to understand?
Zack is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Tags
crime, war



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
fbi crime lab webguy4 Current Events 5 January 12th, 2018 06:23 AM
Gay uses hate for crime Wow Crime and Punishment 19 August 7th, 2008 05:43 AM
Gays and Crime tyrone_det Gay and Lesbian Rights 18 August 5th, 2008 06:51 AM
What Punishment Would Be Appropriate To Which Crime? FrednTexas Crime and Punishment 57 January 19th, 2007 11:06 AM
Should Sodomy be a Crime? Jaxian Opinion Polls 80 January 3rd, 2007 08:37 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.