I think we're doing them a favor. If we sent them to regular prison with other goons they would then get ass-raped and never go to heaven because they partaked in a homosexual activity. At least in their warped mind.
(a)Â*Â*The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that:
(1)Â*Â*there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times,
(i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;
(ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy; or
(iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order;<hr></blockquote>
This is where I have a problem. My personal system of morals (I'm not religious) has no objection to members of the Taleban and/or al-Qaeda being treated like the hateful (Yes, I'm being hateful too, but I don't regularly hold public executions at my local football stadium) scum they are, but I question exactly how Bush intends to try these prisoners?
Many of those currently held at Camp X-Ray do not have any obvious links to al-Qaeda, other than the fact they are Taleban. Even in the case of those where links to al-Qaeda can be proven, there's going to be some very tenuous linking involved to make them guilty of any of the crimes you list.
Most of the fighters knew nothing of the WTC attack plans, they were only fighting to defend the Taleban.
Thankyou Groverat, you are most charitable. I trust you are in support of the concept "justice for all"...or do you feel that these unusual circumstances can warrant summary imprisonment or execution in a style reminiscent of the Taliban, guilty or otherwise? Perhaps we can extend this idea to other criminals if we want to pursue a common standard of justice? Lets start with the Enron executives....
<strong>Many of those currently held at Camp X-Ray do not have any obvious links to al-Qaeda, other than the fact they are Taleban.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My understanding is that they are all Al Qaeda, not Taliban. At least that's the way Ashcroft has described them. I don't know exactly how they know the difference, but they do have documents and even video tapes of them practicing terrorism.
[quote]Even in the case of those where links to al-Qaeda can be proven, there's going to be some very tenuous linking involved to make them guilty of any of the crimes you list.<hr></blockquote>
At the very least, they'd be able to use the military tribunals. There's a lower standard of proof, all officers of the court including the jury will be US military, they don't have to make all evidence public, and no appeals are permitted. Sounds like a slam dunk to me, especially if the offense is simply being a member of Al Qaeda.
[quote]I don't regularly hold public executions at my local football stadium<hr></blockquote>
Sam, I suspect you might be misinterpreting my rants if not others' as well. I am not saying we treat them poorly becuase WE HAVEN'T BEEN TREATING THEM POORLY. We treat them better than anyone else does or would. Sorry if they don't have down pillows, French maids and AC in wintry Cuba.
There are no Afghanis at Camp XRay. They are all foreign born Al Qeada maggots. I was really hoping they would all be killed during combat, unfortunately we had to capture some of them. The only fitting solution would be the firing squad. Unfortunately that will probably not happen either. Fake a breakout, then shoot them all, that would be nice. I also like the other idea, to put them in a max security prison here and let our prisoners take care of them. I'm sure they would enjoy it...........................................
Here's a perfectly reasonable way for the American government to deal with the terrorists:
Paint them all over in neon orange so they can be distinguished from American citizens who happen to be Middle-Eastern-based.
Release them at the site of the Towers, with the following deal: if they can make it to a boat moored at the nearest dock, they can leave the Western Hemisphere and go home.
<strong>My understanding is that they are all Al Qaeda, not Taliban. At least that's the way Ashcroft has described them. I don't know exactly how they know the difference, but they do have documents and even video tapes of them practicing terrorism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The BBC, CNN, and the New York Times all state that there are both members of the Taleban and al-Qaeda at Camp X-Ray. Those are the sources I've been using, so if they're wrong, my apologies.
By practicing, do you mean "rehearsing", or "carrying out" acts of terrorism? As far as I'm aware, the first isn't a crime that they could be tried for anywhere but in Afghanistan, and the second only if they've got proof that the acts of terrorism were carried out on American soil.
[quote]<strong>At the very least, they'd be able to use the military tribunals. There's a lower standard of proof, all officers of the court including the jury will be US military, they don't have to make all evidence public, and no appeals are permitted. Sounds like a slam dunk to me, especially if the offense is simply being a member of Al Qaeda.</strong><hr></blockquote>
See, Belle's Laws state these people are worthless just for being members of al-Qaeda. American law isn't so biased. Military tribunals will not find any evidence of acts of terrorism - violence against US citizens on Afghani soil was part of a military action whether the Taleban/al-Qaeda fighters are considered "legal" soldiers or not. Violence against US citizens on US soil is going to have to be proven with direct ties to the events of September 11. I don't think they've captured anyone high enough in the al-Qaeda network to find these ties. Violence against Afghanis should only be tried in Afghanistan or on neutral territory and by a neutral court.
<strong>Here's a perfectly reasonable way for the American government to deal with the terrorists:
Paint them all over in neon orange so they can be distinguished from American citizens who happen to be Middle-Eastern-based.
Release them at the site of the Towers, with the following deal: if they can make it to a boat moored at the nearest dock, they can leave the Western Hemisphere and go home.
Any American who wishes to throw rocks may.</strong><hr></blockquote>
NOW you've got yourself a reality programming show!
Crash radio-controlled model airplanes into their faces!
The statement I labelled "rhetoric" is nothing but a straw man. You further illustrate your mindset by assuming that I held a certain set of beliefs that you deemed necessary to combat even though I never accepted or denied those beliefs.
So basically, the post I commented on is rhetoric and you've cemented that fact for me, thank you.
[quote]At the very least, they'd be able to use the military tribunals. There's a lower standard of proof, all officers of the court including the jury will be US military, they don't have to make all evidence public, and no appeals are permitted. Sounds like a slam dunk to me, especially if the offense is simply being a member of Al Qaeda.<hr></blockquote>
It also makes a mockery of the United States and everything it is supposed to be defending. That's the kind of kangaroo-court justice that we are supposed to abhor.
But I guess when it is inconvent to be just, might makes right.
Comments
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1773000/1773580.stm"; target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1773000/1773580.stm</a>;
<strong> I'll ask you the same question I asked of iDome - we assume their innocence until proven guilty of what, exactly?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There could be all kinds of charges like <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1117"; target="_blank">conspiracy to murder</a>, <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1114"; target="_blank">murder or attempted murder of employees or officers of the United States</a>, <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=2332b"; target="_blank">conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries</a> and <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=2332a"; target="_blank">conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction.</a>
They could even go with <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=2332"; target="_blank">terrorism</a> or <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/113b/sections/section_2339B.html"; target="_blank">providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations</a>.
Or they could be tried under some international convention covering terrorism.
Or they could use <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/bushtribunalord111301.html"; target="_blank">Bush's military tribunal order:</a>
[quote]Definition and Policy.
(a)Â*Â*The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that:
(1)Â*Â*there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times,
(i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;
(ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy; or
(iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order;<hr></blockquote>
Whew.
This is where I have a problem. My personal system of morals (I'm not religious) has no objection to members of the Taleban and/or al-Qaeda being treated like the hateful (Yes, I'm being hateful too, but I don't regularly hold public executions at my local football stadium) scum they are, but I question exactly how Bush intends to try these prisoners?
Many of those currently held at Camp X-Ray do not have any obvious links to al-Qaeda, other than the fact they are Taleban. Even in the case of those where links to al-Qaeda can be proven, there's going to be some very tenuous linking involved to make them guilty of any of the crimes you list.
Most of the fighters knew nothing of the WTC attack plans, they were only fighting to defend the Taleban.
(A). Employ justice, American style, and try them in a manner which befits a civilized society.
(B). Employ justice, Taliban style, and dispose of them in a way that befits an uncivilized society.
Looking at the responses to this thread, it seems that option (B) is the popular one.
Nice bit of rhetoric.
(edit...typo!)
[ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
<strong>Many of those currently held at Camp X-Ray do not have any obvious links to al-Qaeda, other than the fact they are Taleban.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My understanding is that they are all Al Qaeda, not Taliban. At least that's the way Ashcroft has described them. I don't know exactly how they know the difference, but they do have documents and even video tapes of them practicing terrorism.
[quote]Even in the case of those where links to al-Qaeda can be proven, there's going to be some very tenuous linking involved to make them guilty of any of the crimes you list.<hr></blockquote>
At the very least, they'd be able to use the military tribunals. There's a lower standard of proof, all officers of the court including the jury will be US military, they don't have to make all evidence public, and no appeals are permitted. Sounds like a slam dunk to me, especially if the offense is simply being a member of Al Qaeda.
[quote]I don't regularly hold public executions at my local football stadium<hr></blockquote>
Not regularly, huh?
Paint them all over in neon orange so they can be distinguished from American citizens who happen to be Middle-Eastern-based.
Release them at the site of the Towers, with the following deal: if they can make it to a boat moored at the nearest dock, they can leave the Western Hemisphere and go home.
Any American who wishes to throw rocks may.
<strong>My understanding is that they are all Al Qaeda, not Taliban. At least that's the way Ashcroft has described them. I don't know exactly how they know the difference, but they do have documents and even video tapes of them practicing terrorism.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The BBC, CNN, and the New York Times all state that there are both members of the Taleban and al-Qaeda at Camp X-Ray. Those are the sources I've been using, so if they're wrong, my apologies.
By practicing, do you mean "rehearsing", or "carrying out" acts of terrorism? As far as I'm aware, the first isn't a crime that they could be tried for anywhere but in Afghanistan, and the second only if they've got proof that the acts of terrorism were carried out on American soil.
[quote]<strong>At the very least, they'd be able to use the military tribunals. There's a lower standard of proof, all officers of the court including the jury will be US military, they don't have to make all evidence public, and no appeals are permitted. Sounds like a slam dunk to me, especially if the offense is simply being a member of Al Qaeda.</strong><hr></blockquote>
See, Belle's Laws state these people are worthless just for being members of al-Qaeda. American law isn't so biased. Military tribunals will not find any evidence of acts of terrorism - violence against US citizens on Afghani soil was part of a military action whether the Taleban/al-Qaeda fighters are considered "legal" soldiers or not. Violence against US citizens on US soil is going to have to be proven with direct ties to the events of September 11. I don't think they've captured anyone high enough in the al-Qaeda network to find these ties. Violence against Afghanis should only be tried in Afghanistan or on neutral territory and by a neutral court.
[quote]<strong>Not regularly, huh?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once a month, first Tuesday, I gun down annoying liberal do-gooders in cold blood. February's venue - Yankee Stadium.*
* This may not be entirely true.
<strong>I've searched my heart and my head for sympathy and compassion for these people, but both said "let the f**kers rot"...
They're destructive, humanity-hating, evil f**ks with no respect for the lives of others.
'Scuse my language.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suspect your governess will be more than a little apoplectic (whatever her views on the matter being discussed) if she happens to read this.
[ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>Here's a perfectly reasonable way for the American government to deal with the terrorists:
Paint them all over in neon orange so they can be distinguished from American citizens who happen to be Middle-Eastern-based.
Release them at the site of the Towers, with the following deal: if they can make it to a boat moored at the nearest dock, they can leave the Western Hemisphere and go home.
Any American who wishes to throw rocks may.</strong><hr></blockquote>
NOW you've got yourself a reality programming show!
Crash radio-controlled model airplanes into their faces!
DON'T ANY OF YOU PEOPLE HAVE ANY COMPASSION? WHAT KIND OF UNFEELING STEEL ARE YOU MADE OF?!!!
FEED THE PRISONERS TO THAT POOR, HALF BLIND LION IN AFGHANISTAN!
ANON! TO THE RAMPARTS!!!
Aries 1B
<strong>what abunch of five yearolds!</strong><hr></blockquote>Hey, most of us are at least 13.
The statement I labelled "rhetoric" is nothing but a straw man. You further illustrate your mindset by assuming that I held a certain set of beliefs that you deemed necessary to combat even though I never accepted or denied those beliefs.
So basically, the post I commented on is rhetoric and you've cemented that fact for me, thank you.
It also makes a mockery of the United States and everything it is supposed to be defending. That's the kind of kangaroo-court justice that we are supposed to abhor.
But I guess when it is inconvent to be just, might makes right.