Glory Days wrote: No, they werent representing a country, but it also wasnt an individual attack like McVeigh. their goal is to destroy Israel and other western allies in the middle east. that sounds like war to me.

According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html

So now you are arguing that Osama bin Ladens declaration of war is somehow valid?

He is an individual just like McVeigh it just so happens that Bin Laden was able to attract more followers than McVeigh could.

That does not make it war.

It seems to me since we do have a war on drugs that drug dealers should indeed be put into military trials. We do call it the war on drugs right?

This is not war and they are not soldiers or military. The fact of the matter is they are religious zealots thinking they are military and that does not make them so.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: Why is it that so many people have no confidence in our Constitution or our Justice system to deal with this problem?

See all the previous arguments and you have your answer.

This is being done because of POLITICS and no other reason. A few folks want to make an ideological statement and, in the process, are risking turning these animals loose by giving them rights THEY AREN'T ENTITLED TO.

The matter belongs in a military court, not a civil one. These folks are enemy combatants. Period.

If this blows up (literally or figuratively) it will be Holder's head on a stick and Obama's feet to the fire. As it should be.

BCSbunk wrote: I believe they were civilian criminals and it is not war.

Ok that is your opinion. I am trying to follow your logic here on this particular point. If 9/11 was nothing more than a civillian criminal action by a group of rouge individuals. How would you have proposed they be brought to justice under the terms of civilian law?

Should search warrants have been issued by federal judges in order to search a suspected member of al qaeda's personal effects? Should some members of the US military be trained in the collection of evidence under civilian law? Should we inform have informed members of al qaeda of their right to remain silent and of their right to have an attorney present during questioning?

What do you make of Jefferson and his actions against the Barbary pirates. A group of thugs similar to al qaeda. Why didn't he send federal agents to serve warrants on the pirates in Tripoli and return them to the states to face civil trial? Instead the US chose take care of the matter using the military and martial law. Congress eventually gave him authorization to use force to end their piracy and extortion against the US but stopped short of a formal declaration of war. Is this not the same authoriztion that Bush recieved?

9/11 Authorization of force:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:./temp/~c107O4KrO5::

Barbary Wars:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59720-2001Oct14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

I find it impossible with our civilian law enforcement structure to be able to dismantle al qaeda internationally and bring their membes to justice under civillian law. Civil law in the constitution is geared to protect the accused by limiting the power of the federal government.

I will admit that when congress does not declare a formal state of war in response to acts of war commited against the US it allows for the creation of doubt in the minds of some in reguard to the constituion.

Writerbuckeye wrote:

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: Why is it that so many people have no confidence in our Constitution or our Justice system to deal with this problem?

See all the previous arguments and you have your answer.

This is being done because of POLITICS and no other reason. A few folks want to make an ideological statement and, in the process, are risking turning these animals loose by giving them rights THEY AREN'T ENTITLED TO.

The matter belongs in a military court, not a civil one. These folks are enemy combatants. Period.

If this blows up (literally or figuratively) it will be Holder's head on a stick and Obama's feet to the fire. As it should be.

writer, Why has it taken so long for the right to demand a military trial? Where were all of you hiding all these years? Your argument seems more political than what you claim Holder's actions to be.

stlouiedipalma wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote:

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: Why is it that so many people have no confidence in our Constitution or our Justice system to deal with this problem?

See all the previous arguments and you have your answer.

This is being done because of POLITICS and no other reason. A few folks want to make an ideological statement and, in the process, are risking turning these animals loose by giving them rights THEY AREN'T ENTITLED TO.

The matter belongs in a military court, not a civil one. These folks are enemy combatants. Period.

If this blows up (literally or figuratively) it will be Holder's head on a stick and Obama's feet to the fire. As it should be.

writer, Why has it taken so long for the right to demand a military trial? Where were all of you hiding all these years? Your argument seems more political than what you claim Holder's actions to be.

I'm not going to defend the delay from the past administration. I wanted these animals tried and executed as soon as possible.

At least the previous group didn't parade them out in a civil trial to make some foolish ideological point at the potential expense of this country's security, or give them rights they aren't entitled to.

majorspark wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: I believe they were civilian criminals and it is not war.

Ok that is your opinion. I am trying to follow your logic here on this particular point. If 9/11 was nothing more than a civillian criminal action by a group of rouge individuals. How would you have proposed they be brought to justice under the terms of civilian law?

Should search warrants have been issued by federal judges in order to search a suspected member of al qaeda's personal effects? Should some members of the US military be trained in the collection of evidence under civilian law? Should we inform have informed members of al qaeda of their right to remain silent and of their right to have an attorney present during questioning?

What do you make of Jefferson and his actions against the Barbary pirates. A group of thugs similar to al qaeda. Why didn't he send federal agents to serve warrants on the pirates in Tripoli and return them to the states to face civil trial? Instead the US chose take care of the matter using the military and martial law. Congress eventually gave him authorization to use force to end their piracy and extortion against the US but stopped short of a formal declaration of war. Is this not the same authoriztion that Bush recieved?

9/11 Authorization of force:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:./temp/~c107O4KrO5::

Barbary Wars:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59720-2001Oct14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

I find it impossible with our civilian law enforcement structure to be able to dismantle al qaeda internationally and bring their membes to justice under civillian law. Civil law in the constitution is geared to protect the accused by limiting the power of the federal government.

I will admit that when congress does not declare a formal state of war in response to acts of war commited against the US it allows for the creation of doubt in the minds of some in reguard to the constituion.

The Barbary pirates were backed by Algeria. The terrorists are backed by no one. (that we have proven beyond reasonable doubt) They are not state sponsered like the Barbary pirates were.

I find that a poor comparison. We knew who the Barbary pirates were being supported by. So no I do not believe it is the same thing.

I will continue a bit later on your other questions pushed for time a bit.

ccrunner609 wrote: Any terrorist will probably get the death penalty but what if they get off? I am sure that the left would love to continue their hatred for Bush but Obama would be cooked.

If this trial doesnt go well there is no way he is reelected.

I think these murderous scumballs will get off and face and only face deportation. You can thank Bush, Cheney, John Yoo, David Addington, and Rummy for shitting on the constitution by using torture.

If I were a family member of a 9-11 casualty, I would be fumed off at these idiots from the former administration. No justice for all.

Again with the (not provable) torture stuff.

If we do it to our own folks as part of training, it's NOT torture.

Your fear should be that they walk because the idiots NOW in charge are changing the rules mid-stream when it comes to securing and displaying evidence (among other things); and you also provide these animals with rights they have never been entitled to.

Writer...

How can you defend some of the things the Bush Administration did??

Is it part of training when they did it to them for 5 hours straight??

Writerbuckeye wrote: Again with the (not provable) torture stuff.

Like you always say Writer:
Disprove It

BCSbunk wrote:

majorspark wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: I believe they were civilian criminals and it is not war.

Ok that is your opinion. I am trying to follow your logic here on this particular point. If 9/11 was nothing more than a civillian criminal action by a group of rouge individuals. How would you have proposed they be brought to justice under the terms of civilian law?

Should search warrants have been issued by federal judges in order to search a suspected member of al qaeda's personal effects? Should some members of the US military be trained in the collection of evidence under civilian law? Should we inform have informed members of al qaeda of their right to remain silent and of their right to have an attorney present during questioning?

What do you make of Jefferson and his actions against the Barbary pirates. A group of thugs similar to al qaeda. Why didn't he send federal agents to serve warrants on the pirates in Tripoli and return them to the states to face civil trial? Instead the US chose take care of the matter using the military and martial law. Congress eventually gave him authorization to use force to end their piracy and extortion against the US but stopped short of a formal declaration of war. Is this not the same authoriztion that Bush recieved?

9/11 Authorization of force:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:./temp/~c107O4KrO5::

Barbary Wars:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59720-2001Oct14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

I find it impossible with our civilian law enforcement structure to be able to dismantle al qaeda internationally and bring their membes to justice under civillian law. Civil law in the constitution is geared to protect the accused by limiting the power of the federal government.

I will admit that when congress does not declare a formal state of war in response to acts of war commited against the US it allows for the creation of doubt in the minds of some in reguard to the constituion.

The Barbary pirates were backed by Algeria. The terrorists are backed by no one. (that we have proven beyond reasonable doubt) They are not state sponsered like the Barbary pirates were.

I find that a poor comparison. We knew who the Barbary pirates were being supported by. So no I do not believe it is the same thing.

I will continue a bit later on your other questions pushed for time a bit.

What should be done? Well we cannot go back in the past and reverse the errors of the former administration.

However I have no proof that they were not read their rights when apprehended do you?

Here is what will happen. They will be tried and then rewarded for their crimes against the US. Being rewarded will encourage more terrorism and fill the zealots with glee that they also one day may be rewarded the greatest of all rewards that they can be given.

I think one of two things could be done in the future. First an official declaration of war, which I do not think will happen. Or we can work with the governments such as Pakistan and others with apprehending the criminals and bringing them to justice.

IMO the biggest problems have been botching the constitution, and then rewarding the terrorists instead of punishing them.

The lack of reason in our government is truly tragic.

The lack of reason in our government is truly tragic.

And yet, we keep giving them more and more leadway over us.

<sigh>

Elliot Stabler wrote: Writer...

How can you defend some of the things the Bush Administration did??

Is it part of training when they did it to them for 5 hours straight??

Writerbuckeye wrote: Again with the (not provable) torture stuff.

Like you always say Writer:
Disprove It

Doesn't work that way. YOU make the accusation -- YOU have to prove it.

Writerbuckeye wrote:

Elliot Stabler wrote: Writer...

How can you defend some of the things the Bush Administration did??

Is it part of training when they did it to them for 5 hours straight??

Writerbuckeye wrote: Again with the (not provable) torture stuff.

Like you always say Writer:
Disprove It

Doesn't work that way, child. YOU make the accusation -- YOU have to prove it.

Elliot, Writer is correct the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. LJ the moderator here has stated that also.

I hope you guys don't expect ES to do that. He made a claim last night and got disproven 57 ways to Sunday.

Writerbuckeye wrote: Again with the (not provable) torture stuff.

If we do it to our own folks as part of training, it's NOT torture.

Your fear should be that they walk because the idiots NOW in charge are changing the rules mid-stream when it comes to securing and displaying evidence (among other things); and you also provide these animals with rights they have never been entitled to.

How many sources do you need confirming waterboarding as torture?

Plenty of reliable sources have confirmed waterboarding as being torture.

What do you want 10 links? 20 links? A hundred links? You are terribly uninformed on this subject.

Writerbuckeye wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Krauthammer and the National Review talking about war crimes? Anybody else feel the permeation of brutal, brutal irony here?

Prove the crimes. I'll be happy to wait for you.

I'm not a trial lawyer...so I don't have to prove shit. Take a looksy outside of the National Review box from time to time and broaden your overall knowledge of subjects.

There are plenty of countries around the globe that view America's invasion of Iraq, promoted by neocons like Krauthammer, as war criminal activity.

CenterBHSFan wrote: I hope you guys don't expect ES to do that. He made a claim last night and got disproven 57 ways to Sunday.

He wasn't disproven even one time. Not on this thread at least.

Footwedge wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Again with the (not provable) torture stuff.

If we do it to our own folks as part of training, it's NOT torture.

Your fear should be that they walk because the idiots NOW in charge are changing the rules mid-stream when it comes to securing and displaying evidence (among other things); and you also provide these animals with rights they have never been entitled to.

How many sources do you need confirming waterboarding as torture?

Plenty of reliable sources have confirmed waterboarding as being torture.

What do you want 10 links? 20 links? A hundred links? You are terribly uninformed on this subject.

there are also plenty of links out there that show it isnt torture.

Footwedge wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: I hope you guys don't expect ES to do that. He made a claim last night and got disproven 57 ways to Sunday.

He wasn't disproven even one time. Not on this thread at least.

I know he didn't say that on this thread. Maybe I accidently posted that it was this thread? Oh...nope.

Glory Days wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Again with the (not provable) torture stuff.

If we do it to our own folks as part of training, it's NOT torture.

Your fear should be that they walk because the idiots NOW in charge are changing the rules mid-stream when it comes to securing and displaying evidence (among other things); and you also provide these animals with rights they have never been entitled to.

How many sources do you need confirming waterboarding as torture?

Plenty of reliable sources have confirmed waterboarding as being torture.

What do you want 10 links? 20 links? A hundred links? You are terribly uninformed on this subject.

there are also plenty of links out there that show it isnt torture.

Point counter point.

If you BELIEVE it's torture, then I guess it is...to YOU. Otherwise, not so much.

BCSbunk wrote:

majorspark wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: I believe they were civilian criminals and it is not war.

Ok that is your opinion. I am trying to follow your logic here on this particular point. If 9/11 was nothing more than a civillian criminal action by a group of rouge individuals. How would you have proposed they be brought to justice under the terms of civilian law?

Should search warrants have been issued by federal judges in order to search a suspected member of al qaeda's personal effects? Should some members of the US military be trained in the collection of evidence under civilian law? Should we inform have informed members of al qaeda of their right to remain silent and of their right to have an attorney present during questioning?

What do you make of Jefferson and his actions against the Barbary pirates. A group of thugs similar to al qaeda. Why didn't he send federal agents to serve warrants on the pirates in Tripoli and return them to the states to face civil trial? Instead the US chose take care of the matter using the military and martial law. Congress eventually gave him authorization to use force to end their piracy and extortion against the US but stopped short of a formal declaration of war. Is this not the same authoriztion that Bush recieved?

9/11 Authorization of force:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:./temp/~c107O4KrO5::

Barbary Wars:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59720-2001Oct14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

I find it impossible with our civilian law enforcement structure to be able to dismantle al qaeda internationally and bring their membes to justice under civillian law. Civil law in the constitution is geared to protect the accused by limiting the power of the federal government.

I will admit that when congress does not declare a formal state of war in response to acts of war commited against the US it allows for the creation of doubt in the minds of some in reguard to the constituion.

The Barbary pirates were backed by Algeria. The terrorists are backed by no one. (that we have proven beyond reasonable doubt) They are not state sponsered like the Barbary pirates were.

I find that a poor comparison. We knew who the Barbary pirates were being supported by. So no I do not believe it is the same thing.

I will continue a bit later on your other questions pushed for time a bit.

I find it a quite logical comparison.

Were not the Barbary pirates backed by the tribute paid to them for safe passage on the high seas in their sphere of influence? Algeria was nothing more than a safe habor for them to train and conduct offensive naval operations agains civilian shipping. Is this not the same as Afghanistan?

If Algeria was a definable nation state backing the Barbary pirates why did Jefferson not ask for a declaration of war against Algeria?

Both Bush and Jefferson recieved authority by congress to use the armed forces of the USA without a formal declaration of war to engage in offensive operations against terrorist/pirate enemies.

Were Bush, Jefferson, or both operating outside the constitution?

Hopefully the boat is sinking fast enough so that we can avoid the infliction of permanent and irreversible damage:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential

Obama has a boat/submarine super machine, so even if he sinks below the waves, he'll be able to get at you from below just as well. Just like Jaws. CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!

cbus4life wrote: Obama has a boat/submarine super machine, so even if he sinks below the waves, he'll be able to get at you from below just as well. Just like Jaws. CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!

you make it sound like he is out to get us?

His name is Mr. President, Obama, or President Obama on this forum.

-LJ