Military Tribunal or Criminal Court?

[Gertch]

Given the attitudes towards crime, justice and law you've been promoting; no. It does not necessarily imply anything other than "they are the enemy. Kill the bastards".

Then you're putting your own bias on my words.

But you ARE in favour of putting civilians before a military tribunal, right?

Are terrorists not enemy combatants?

And how is this any different than such "justice" under people like Sadamm Hussein or the Islamic extermist that we seek to condemn for being primitive barbarians?

At what point did "justice" mean surrendering to our baser natures and becoming the monsters we seek to defeat?

What the hell are you talking about? I said after a verdict is read. Does that not imply a trial?

Hussein had "trials" too, so does places like Iran. Trial and verdict does not necessarily stop gaps to any sort of abuse or error. After all, life in prison and innocent man still has his life and can't the hope of being free one day when the error is caught. A bullet to the back of the head, and innocent man is dead.

So how much evidence do you need to find the tightie-whitie al qaedie guilty? KSM?

Death penalty would be more expensive that life in prison. This has been explained again and again in threads concerning the death penalty.

And again and again the rules can be changed. What's one bullet cost right after a verdict is read and the guilty is led to the courtyard out back?

The smile doesn't make that sound any less evil.

Carrying out a lawful sentence is evil?

I can't put my finger on what's missing but I sure like that we can have a good discussion without the personal jabs. Thank you all.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I can't put my finger on what's missing but I sure like that we can have a good discussion without the personal jabs. Thank you all.

Fair enough, but you've been told the death penalty is more expensive than prison, due to the appeals process, etc. Your response was "well, change that process to make it cheaper, get rid of all that, have a court say "you are guilty", take them out back and shoot them". Surely you can understand that people will get a bit angry at that. That's tyranny, oppression and startling abuse of power of the worst order. If that is the USA you envision, then the USA is the enemy of freedom and liberty. Surely you must see this? The american people should perhaps be more concerned about this attitude among their own than in attacks from outsiders. It isn't arabs who are going to take away your freedoms.

Carrying out a lawful sentence is evil?

And "lawful" doesn't mean right, Gertch. I'd have thought an American would know that. If not, your country wouldn't exist and you'd be loyal subjects of Elizabeth II. The USA only exists because your forebears protested lawful procedure; because they thought that lawful procedure was wrong and refused to go along with it.

 

[SeerSGB]

Then you're putting your own bias on my words.

But you ARE in favour of putting civilians before a military tribunal, right?

Are terrorists not enemy combatants?



So how much evidence do you need to find the tightie-whitie al qaedie guilty? KSM?

Guilt does not automatically mean they forfeit their lives. We can not become the very thing we're fighting against and they claim we already are.

Again, you miss the bigger picture: how long before we start declaring people that protest outside the White House "terrorist". How long before we arrest a Baptist minister in Kentucky cause he is preaching anti-abortion and rallying people to that cause? Would you support the arrest of tea-party organizers?

Flip it over: We know that nations like China and N. Korea, even Iran, arrest, "try" and sentence Christian missionaries who do nothing but try to spread the word of their faith. Would you be in favor of those nations executing these people, even US citizens, cause it would be cheaper on their nations? Would you be supporting or condemning Iran if they captured a US solider, declared him a "terrorist" and executed him to "save money".

 

[sidious618]

Carrying out a lawful sentence is evil?

I'd say shooting someone who is defenseless in the head is evil, yeah. If you want to take that as a personal "jab" then be my guest but I'm merely putting forth my opinion that shooting someone as a form of punishment is cruel and vile.

 

[Marc]

Carrying out a lawful sentence is evil?

A hardline cleric in Iran is called for more protestors imprisoned after recent events to be executed.

Their execution would be lawful under Iranian law but would they be right.

 

[ST-One]

Then you're putting your own bias on my words.

But you ARE in favour of putting civilians before a military tribunal, right?

Are terrorists not enemy combatants?

Only if you can provide evidence that they are fighting for a country.

 

[Marc]

But you ARE in favour of putting civilians before a military tribunal, right?

Are terrorists not enemy combatants?

Only if you can provide evidence that they are fighting for a country.

and if they are fighting for their country then they would count as POWs and come under the 3rd Geneva convention.

 

[Gertch]

Fair enough, but you've been told the death penalty is more expensive than prison, due to the appeals process, etc. Your response was "well, change that process to make it cheaper, get rid of all that, have a court say "you are guilty", take them out back and shoot them".

And "lawful" doesn't mean right, Gertch.

No. Coming back with a verdict today means you get a fair trial. Whether it be military or civilian. I never said to bypass any of that.

One the verdict is delivered and the sentence rendered, carry it out. If it's prison, send them. If it's the death penalty, carry it out.

So in the case of the Fruit of Kaboom terrorist, if his sentence is death, take him out back. If it is jail, take him there. But there is no need for appeals for one just has to look at his crotch to see he's the one.

But don't worry. The process wont change for the same reason tort reform wont happen in order to lower health care costs - politicians don't want to piss off the lawyers.

 

[Gertch]

But you ARE in favour of putting civilians before a military tribunal, right?

Are terrorists not enemy combatants?

Only if you can provide evidence that they are fighting for a country.

But a country is an arbitrary line drawn on a map. These terrorists, by aligning together, form a country or organization of enemy combatants. What's more is they are not in uniform and should therefore be considered spies that can be shot on site.

Carrying out a lawful sentence is evil?

I'd say shooting someone who is defenseless in the head is evil, yeah. If you want to take that as a personal "jab" then be my guest but I'm merely putting forth my opinion that shooting someone as a form of punishment is cruel and vile.

No jab at all. I was being sincere.

Bundy was defenseless when he was put to death. So wasn't everyone else executed in the US. Yet those were lawful sentences being carried out. Am I wrong?

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Are terrorists not enemy combatants?

Only if you can provide evidence that they are fighting for a country.

But a country is an arbitrary line drawn on a map. These terrorists, by aligning together, form a country or organization of enemy combatants. What's more is they are not in uniform and should therefore be considered spies that can be shot on site.

Oh good. We have an excuse to shoot people on sight. I'm sure that's made your day.

It seems to me "enemy combatant", in GertchAmericanSpeak, is defined as "someone I want an excuse to shoot".

Ok, consider this, Gertch. You won't like it, but I'm being controversial because you're annoying me. Many terrorists/freedom fighters/whatever are fighting against military occupations of their countries by outsiders, including most predominantly the USA. If the USA is occupying their nations, does that not make you valid targets?

Don't you know that the USA was founded as a result of armed insurrection? So why is it okay for your forebears to engage in armed insurrection because they were bitter over tea taxes when those fighting against a hyperpower running military occupations of their homelands is cause to post smilies as you contemplate sentencing them to immediate execution? Hypocrisy, no? Your ancestors were British citizens who you applaud (as do I, for that matter) for declaring themselves free when they felt their home nation was oppressive. Why is it, then, that the USA feels it can meddle in the Middle East for decades, arm countries and tribes there against other countries and tribes, bomb the hell out of half of it, meddle some more against groups half of which you armed in the first place and then invade and occupy countries like Iraq which never attacked you, and then announce those fighting you have, essentially, NO RIGHTS.

These topics always end up- no, sorry, start too- with so many Americans defending tyranny, hypocrisy, gleeful calls for violence, and a complete lack of regard for morality, empathy and the hallmarks of civilization, and members of a myriad of other people trying to call you out on it.

I'm British. We know what we're talking about. Not too long ago, the hyperpower casually disregarding rights and freedoms as it cheerfully destroyed half the world was us. I wish Americans would see they're a considerable way down the same road.

 

[Squiggy]

Military tribunal. If the suspect says anything close to jihad, they are declaring war against us, so the tribunal is the only real option.

This is me declaring war on you.

I await your nukes.

 

[sidious618]

Bundy was defenseless when he was put to death. So wasn't everyone else executed in the US. Yet those were lawful sentences being carried out. Am I wrong?

They were lawful, yes, no argument there. They were also evil, though.

 

[ST-One]

Are terrorists not enemy combatants?

Only if you can provide evidence that they are fighting for a country.

But a country is an arbitrary line drawn on a map. These terrorists, by aligning together, form a country or organization of enemy combatants. What's more is they are not in uniform and should therefore be considered spies that can be shot on site.

I'm at a loss for words.

 

[Squiggy]

These terrorists, by aligning together, form a country or organization of enemy combatants.

No more so than the NFL is a country.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Military tribunal. If the suspect says anything close to jihad, they are declaring war against us, so the tribunal is the only real option.

This is me declaring war on you.

I await your nukes.

If we knew where UBL was I'd have no problem dropping one on him. Twice.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Military tribunal. If the suspect says anything close to jihad, they are declaring war against us, so the tribunal is the only real option.

This is me declaring war on you.

I await your nukes.

If we knew where UBL was I'd have no problem dropping one on him. Twice.

Do you mean OBL? I'd rather not take out an entire country to remove the threat of one man, thank you.

Still, America is angry. Let the missiles fly. Flattening the Middle East might make them feel better.

Hmmm, has anyone here read my post in the "sex offenders and sharp objects/genitals" thread? Because the instinct for inflicting suffering and pain to ease feelings of societal insecurity which I mention there implies here very much.

 

[Marc]

This is me declaring war on you.

I await your nukes.

If we knew where UBL was I'd have no problem dropping one on him. Twice.

Do you mean OBL? I'd rather not take out an entire country to remove the threat of one man, thank you.

Still, America is angry. Let the missiles fly. Flattening the Middle East might make them feel better.

At which point they put a bullet in the head of everything that the U.S stands for.

We've (non-Americans) always heard about America - land of the free,home of the brave, leader of the free world, beacon of democracy etc etc and then we have the attitudes og gertch and tls basically saying that everything is load of crap and toss it out the window.

Maybe they need to remind of the words for the 7th Doctor - "If we fight like animals, we die like animals".

 

[Deranged Nasat]

If we knew where UBL was I'd have no problem dropping one on him. Twice.

Do you mean OBL? I'd rather not take out an entire country to remove the threat of one man, thank you.

Still, America is angry. Let the missiles fly. Flattening the Middle East might make them feel better.

At which point they put a bullet in the head of everything that the U.S stands for.

We've (non-Americans) always heard about America - land of the free,home of the brave, leader of the free world, beacon of democracy etc etc and then we have the attitudes og gertch and tls basically saying that everything is load of crap and toss it out the window.

Maybe they need to remind of the words for the 7th Doctor - "If we fight like animals, we die like animals".

Indeed. Now, maybe I'm a bit hard on America. But I'm British, as I say. I know the evils of super-powers; my own country's not-so-little lets-take-over-the-world obssession causes me to take a dim view of big nations throwing their weight around and bringing suffering not only on everyone else but on their own people.

The USA was founded in opposition to the British Empire. It was founded on ideas of something better. Between that fact and their status as a superpower, the USA has MASSIVE responsibility.
That's why I get angry when they seem so eager to throw it all away.

The USA is supposed to be better than that. But it isn't.

 

[Gertch]

Ok, consider this, Gertch. You won't like it, but I'm being controversial because you're annoying me. Many terrorists/freedom fighters/whatever are fighting against military occupations of their countries by outsiders, including most predominantly the USA. If the USA is occupying their nations, does that not make you valid targets?

Disagreeing in not being insulting. It's how we examine ourselves and our own beliefs and ideas. So I do like it. I'm just sorry I'm annoying you.

I was confining my responses to the subject of the thread; Military or criminal court for terrorists, not birth of a nation.

Failing seeing how else I can make my position clearer I'll have to end it there. Thank you though.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

This is me declaring war on you.

I await your nukes.

If we knew where UBL was I'd have no problem dropping one on him. Twice.

Do you mean OBL? I'd rather not take out an entire country to remove the threat of one man, thank you.

Still, America is angry. Let the missiles fly. Flattening the Middle East might make them feel better.

Hmmm, has anyone here read my post in the "sex offenders and sharp objects/genitals" thread? Because the instinct for inflicting suffering and pain to ease feelings of societal insecurity which I mention there implies here very much.

No, I mean UBL. That's the translation that most of our intelligence agencies use.