I think that some may be over estimating the number of "patriots" in the federal prison system.

None of these terrorists will be put into the general population of any federal prison. Solitary at the Supermax at worst. They are not going to be taking 12 from Bubba.

BCSbunk wrote: Terrorism is certainly not war they are not synonymous not even a little bit. Talk about polluting language and making clear terms ambiguous this here will do it.

If you say terrorism is not war and not synonymous evan a little bit with war, then all our actions against it must be legally executed under our constitution. That means our military cannot be used against any said terrorist. We cannot drop bombs on suspected terrorist bases. We cannot search and seize any property or evidence without warrant. We must inform all individuals of their right to silence and their right to an attorney.

Under the rules of the constitution khalid sheikh mohammed should be set free. Unless he pleads guilty, I challenge anyone to present evidence to the contrary. Instead we provide a "show" trial that will make a mockery of our civilian justice system. We will provide unconsitutionally gathered evidence to a prejudiced jury. No judge will have the balls to apply the laws of our constitution to his case and throw it out.

BCSbunk wrote: So then what are your reactions to the terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan by the US?

Are you equating our actions in these nations to the actions of terrorists? If so what government officials do you wish to bring to trial on terrorism charges? Bush? Well he did not act outside of congress. Should we also charge those congressmen who voted in favor of military action as well? What about Obama who carries on with the same authority namely in Afghanistan? Should we also charge congressmen that continually vote to fund these actions? I just don't understand the equation you are trying to make here.

BCSbunk wrote: The word war and the word terrorist are different for a reason.

In your above statement you just equated our words "war" in Afghanistan and Iraq as terrorism. Most of us can discern the difference between someone acting on his on volition loading his shoe or undies with explosives, as apposed to those acting in in a concerted effort with a larger group to organize large scale attacks that no nation state to this day has been able to accomplish on our soil.

I call the levelling of two of our largest buildings, major damage to the pentagon, a plane downed in Pennsylvania destined for the White House, nearly 3000 dead on our soil, acts of war. This is not a job to be handled by law enforcement by civilian law under the constitution. Instead should be handled under martial law, by the military of the USA.

BCSbunk wrote: Soldiers go to military trials Civilians go to civilian court. I am not willing to call Al Qaeda members soldiers. The words soldier and terrorist are not synonymous either.

What defines a soldier? A uniform of a nation state? In fact by your statements above you make our soldiers synonymous with terrorists. After all they are the ones carrying out the terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

majorspark wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: Terrorism is certainly not war they are not synonymous not even a little bit. Talk about polluting language and making clear terms ambiguous this here will do it.

If you say terrorism is not war and not synonymous evan a little bit with war, then all our actions against it must be legally executed under our constitution. That means our military cannot be used against any said terrorist. We cannot drop bombs on suspected terrorist bases. We cannot search and seize any property or evidence without warrant. We must inform all individuals of their right to silence and their right to an attorney.

Under the rules of the constitution khalid sheikh mohammed should be set free. Unless he pleads guilty, I challenge anyone to present evidence to the contrary. Instead we provide a "show" trial that will make a mockery of our civilian justice system. We will provide unconsitutionally gathered evidence to a prejudiced jury. No judge will have the balls to apply the laws of our constitution to his case and throw it out.

BCSbunk wrote: So then what are your reactions to the terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan by the US?

Are you equating our actions in these nations to the actions of terrorists? If so what government officials do you wish to bring to trial on terrorism charges? Bush? Well he did not act outside of congress. Should we also charge those congressmen who voted in favor of military action as well? What about Obama who carries on with the same authority namely in Afghanistan? Should we also charge congressmen that continually vote to fund these actions? I just don't understand the equation you are trying to make here.

BCSbunk wrote: The word war and the word terrorist are different for a reason.

In your above statement you just equated our words "war" in Afghanistan and Iraq as terrorism. Most of us can discern the difference between someone acting on his on volition loading his shoe or undies with explosives, as apposed to those acting in in a concerted effort with a larger group to organize large scale attacks that no nation state to this day has been able to accomplish on our soil.

I call the levelling of two of our largest buildings, major damage to the pentagon, a plane downed in Pennsylvania destined for the White House, nearly 3000 dead on our soil, acts of war. This is not a job to be handled by law enforcement by civilian law under the constitution. Instead should be handled under martial law, by the military of the USA.

BCSbunk wrote: Soldiers go to military trials Civilians go to civilian court. I am not willing to call Al Qaeda members soldiers. The words soldier and terrorist are not synonymous either.

What defines a soldier? A uniform of a nation state? In fact by your statements above you make our soldiers synonymous with terrorists. After all they are the ones carrying out the terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Are you equating our actions in these nations to the actions of terrorists? If so what government officials do you wish to bring to trial on terrorism charges? Bush? Well he did not act outside of congress. Should we also charge those congressmen who voted in favor of military action as well? What about Obama who carries on with the same authority namely in Afghanistan? Should we also charge congressmen that continually vote to fund these actions? I just don't understand the equation you are trying to make here.

I did not. CBHS did. I asked a question using the word terrorism is war as a response. IF war is terrorism then it would applicable to ask what do you think of our terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. No double standards available I will call them out everytime. If war is terrorism and vice versa and can be applied in the same way, then yes the US is engaging in terrorism by the very definition put forth.

I did not put that definition forward. I said that terrorism and war are different. Soldier and terrorist are also different yet you are trying to argue they are the very same?

Soldier:an enlisted man or woman who serves in an army.
Army: a permanent organization of the military land forces of a nation or state

Now as I stated above in the other post you can bastardize the english language all you want but I am going to call it out. There are no perfect synonyms and there should not be as it renders one of the words useless.

People try to use words and pervert definitions all the time.

If war is terrorism then the US is doing terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why can I say that? Because I have just been told that war and terrorism are the very same thing so the words are then interchangable.

Sorry war is not terrorism and terrorism is not war they are seperate words with different definitions.

"call it out" hahaha

If terrorists are not a part of war, why do these folks consider themselves soldiers of Allah?

THEY see this as war whether you do or not.

THEY act as if they are at war with the US, whether you do or not.

You want to stand on your principles and be gutted in the process -- have at it.

I prefer we treat these vermin like the enemy combatants they see themselves as being, and NOT give them rights accorded to US citizens under the Constitution.

They don't deserve it.

All terrorism is war.

All war is not terrorism.

Writerbuckeye wrote:
You want to stand on your principles and be gutted in the process -- have at it.

I prefer we treat these vermin like the enemy combatants they see themselves as being, and NOT give them rights accorded to US citizens under the Constitution.

They don't deserve it.

You want to gut the principles this country is supposed to represent because you are scared then have at it. I'm not willing to be a coward.

You are also assuming everyone we capture is a combatant. That is the problem with your reasoning.

And they are not given Constitutional rights. They are given basic human rights that should be afforded to everyone.

Hey, what's my name doing on the quote? That's not mine. :-/

I have no idea why it did that. I've noticed it randomly inserts names into quotes sometimes.

I had that problem once on the old site. It's very confounding!

yes it is very annoying

eersandbeers wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote:
You want to stand on your principles and be gutted in the process -- have at it.

I prefer we treat these vermin like the enemy combatants they see themselves as being, and NOT give them rights accorded to US citizens under the Constitution.

They don't deserve it.

You want to gut the principles this country is supposed to represent because you are scared then have at it. I'm not willing to be a coward.

You are also assuming everyone we capture is a combatant. That is the problem with your reasoning.

And they are not given Constitutional rights. They are given basic human rights that should be afforded to everyone.

If we were ACTUALLY talking about principles, I would agree with you.

What we're discussing in reality is someone's IDEA of what the US principles should be -- not what they are or how they've been abused.

As for your last statement -- you're just dead wrong. The US Constitution is not meant for everyone. It's not the United States of the World.

To be frank, if they're trying to kill us, and trust me, if they were given the opportunity to once they were captured, they would be, then I'm all for treating them like the vermin they are.

If they're captured on US soil, that's a little different. But just say a marshal on board that plane was to say, shoot and kill the terrorist, then I don't think too many would mind.

pnhasbeen wrote: Kill a man. You're fine in prison. Armed robbery. You're cool. Attack the USA as a whole, won't fly.

How do you attack the USA as a whole? I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure how you define it. Obviously the terrorists who flew the planes were terrorists, and McVeigh was a terrorist, but how do you define terrorist without taking away rights from people who aren't terrorists. I do not want to make it easy for someone to be declared a terrorist and have them lose the rights and protection they are due.

cbus4life wrote: Should we be trying the folks who blow up abortion clinics in a military court?

Or the Animal Liberation Front, which is a terrorist organization?

That's a good example

derek bomar wrote: Is there an agreed upon definition that says terrorism is an act of war? I mean, was McVeigh at War with something? How do you differentiate the two? And why does it even matter? They're going to go to jail, who cares how? Seriously, it doesn't matter. This should be about the end result and not the process.

Another good example

majorspark wrote: Under the rules of the constitution khalid sheikh mohammed should be set free. Unless he pleads guilty, I challenge anyone to present evidence to the contrary. Instead we provide a "show" trial that will make a mockery of our civilian justice system. We will provide unconsitutionally gathered evidence to a prejudiced jury. No judge will have the balls to apply the laws of our constitution to his case and throw it out.

This is a good example where in my mind the guy does not deserve the same trial as a US citizen. I want to not be concerned with his rights because he's obviously a bad guy. I'm not quite sure how we can draw the line between the two though.

Writerbuckeye wrote: If terrorists are not a part of war, why do these folks consider themselves soldiers of Allah?

THEY see this as war whether you do or not.

THEY act as if they are at war with the US, whether you do or not.

You want to stand on your principles and be gutted in the process -- have at it.

I prefer we treat these vermin like the enemy combatants they see themselves as being, and NOT give them rights accorded to US citizens under the Constitution.

They don't deserve it.

You're looking at only Muslim terrorists. They are pretty easy to define, but what if they aren't Muslim? What if they are Muslin, but aren't terrorists?

eersandbeers wrote: You are also assuming everyone we capture is a combatant. That is the problem with your reasoning.

And they are not given Constitutional rights. They are given basic human rights that should be afforded to everyone.

I agree with that. I know who I think the terrorists are, but I don't know how exactly to define it to ptrotect the people who should be given a fair trial and have a presumption of innocence.

If they are enemy combatants, taking part in action that they deem to be military action, shouldn't they be held according to what is set forth with the Geneva Convention?

Or, because they kill civilians, do they forfeit that right?

But, civilian death is always a by product of war, so, is that ok? Do we hold them until the "war" is over? What if the war never ends? What about those who weren't even combatants?

Writerbuckeye wrote:

If we were ACTUALLY talking about principles, I would agree with you.

What we're discussing in reality is someone's IDEA of what the US principles should be -- not what they are or how they've been abused.

As for your last statement -- you're just dead wrong. The US Constitution is not meant for everyone. It's not the United States of the World.

We are discussing principles and the same principles the US government has claimed to represent on numerous occasions.

I never said the Constitution was for everyone. I said they are granted basic human rights.

cbus4life wrote: If they are enemy combatants, taking part in action that they deem to be military action, shouldn't they be held according to what is set forth with the Geneva Convention?

Or, because they kill civilians, do they forfeit that right?

But, civilian death is always a by product of war, so, is that ok? Do we hold them until the "war" is over? What if the war never ends? What about those who weren't even combatants?

The Article 5 of the 4th Geneva says that civilians suspected of taking action against the occupying country should be held and given full protections. The Supreme Court has agree with this.

There is no end to a war on ideology. That is the main problem.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100129/D9DHDH582.html

hes back again , he wants to talk about Global Warming lol.

The Declaration of Independence was not only a statement about our rights but a statement of rights for all mankind, given to us through our humanity from the creator. We win this war by embracing what is American, a respect of natural rights and the rule of law. We lose this war by becoming unAmerican, denying natural rights and the rule of law and torturing. I'm all for going after the people that attack us and bringing them to justice, but we will do so as Americans and not as barbarians.

Ridiculously simplistic view of a much more complex issue, in my view bman, and a bit over the top idealistically when you try to mesh it with the real world.

You can stand on American principles without conceding NATIONAL rights -- not earned by birth or otherwise -- to people who would just as soon slit your throat as look at you.

The Declaration of Independence (and Constitution) were written for OUR COUNTRY, not the world. We don't simply hand over most rights or benefits to illegals who aren't breaking the law; why should we go that extra step for people who have sworn an oath to kill innocents?

We can still embrace what is American, respect the rights we have here in this country and the rule of law, and not become so idealistic that we handcuff ourselves in a type of fight against an enemy that operates outside the normal boundaries of traditional battles and generally accepted international law.

^Incorrect. The Declaration was not just a statement of our rights but the statement of the rights of all mankind. And those words come from Thomas Jefferson, the author. And isn't this the country that Reagan called the city on the hill, that has tried to expand freedom to mankind by sacrificing our fellow countrymen, such as liberating western Europe from Nazism? America is made special by our ideas and convictions and I'm not willing to throw away our Constitution, the rule of law and our national honor because some of us are afraid of some savages. We will defeat them by being Americans.