KnightofChrist Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' date='16 November 2009 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1258404629' post='2003856'] [b]How do we know that the attack at Fort Hood was an act of Islamist terrorism? Simple, Major Nidal Hassan told us so.[/b] I've been saying this over and over!! Thanks for this thread! [/quote] Second that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommas_boy Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Didymus' date='16 November 2009 - 05:39 PM' timestamp='1258411195' post='2003898'] is there a thread on the 'U.S. trials for the detainees' story? I couldn't find one and I figured someone would have started one. My question is that if we hold Constitutional rights to be inalienable, then why is it that we would allow the government to deny them to someone merely because of their citizenship status? Wouldn't everyone deserve those rights to be recognized under the constitution? [/quote] The Constitution does not declare rights as being inalienable; that's the Declaration. Not that I agree with the sentiment, but the Declaration is not Law; and it's high ideals are not goals, but platitudes in the eyes of the court and society. Edited November 17, 2009 by mommas_boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='16 November 2009 - 07:18 PM' timestamp='1258420690' post='2004037'] The detainees' are not citizens of the Untied States, they are not civilians. They are enemy combatants or prisoners of war. Either way they should face trial in a military court, not civilian. This is a most ridiclous and dangerous, they will in effect have an open mic to the press. And could easily let off on a technicality. [/quote] No matter how you try to skin the cat, we should be treating them better than we currently are, regardless of their crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='16 November 2009 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1258423495' post='2004059'] No matter how you try to skin the cat, we should be treating them better than we currently are, regardless of their crimes. [/quote] They are a lot better off than is currently thought my most people. But no matter what they do not belong in civilian courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamiller42 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='16 November 2009 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1258423495' post='2004059'] No matter how you try to skin the cat, we should be treating them better than we currently are, regardless of their crimes. [/quote] Should a justice system run under a Taliban run Afghanistan be our benchmark? A civilian trial is going beyond what they deserve. You do realize they will have more rights in U.S. courts than any U.S. veteran would get under the UCMJ? Yea, the guys they were shooting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 [quote name='Didymus' date='16 November 2009 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1258411195' post='2003898'] is there a thread on the 'U.S. trials for the detainees' story? I couldn't find one and I figured someone would have started one. My question is that if we hold Constitutional rights to be inalienable, then why is it that we would allow the government to deny them to someone merely because of their citizenship status? Wouldn't everyone deserve those rights to be recognized under the constitution? [/quote] If you read the Constitution, the right to trial by a jury of one's peers is a right given to persons and not just citizens. So Constitutionally, as long anyone is in American custody they should receive a trial by one's peers. But, no one really reads the Constitution anymore, they just go on inherited ideological principles which don't necessarily coincide with the Constitution or rather simply practice a sort of practical ad hoc ethic, but I am getting off topic. Also, technically the understanding of inalienable rights comes from the Declaration of Independence, but this isn't necessarily a problem since the Declaration has been described as the soul to the Constitution's skeletal structure. Abraham Lincoln saw the Declaration's principles as illuminating and guiding the way the Constitution should be read, and no matter what you think of him and his actions it seems that at least in this assumption he is right, which sets a precedent for other Presidents to follow in this understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 [quote name='Didymus' date='16 November 2009 - 05:39 PM' timestamp='1258411195' post='2003898'] is there a thread on the 'U.S. trials for the detainees' story? I couldn't find one and I figured someone would have started one. My question is that if we hold Constitutional rights to be inalienable, then why is it that we would allow the government to deny them to someone merely because of their citizenship status? Wouldn't everyone deserve those rights to be recognized under the constitution? [/quote] [quote name='fidei defensor' date='16 November 2009 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1258416084' post='2003952'] Yes, and it's worth repeating over and over again. Ideologically, we believe that everyone deserves a fair trial, despite what crime they are accused of committing. It's why both a traffic ticket and murderers get the same attention in court. However, we've lost our way because we let emotions cloud our reasoning. Fortunately, the constitution didn't add "only if we feel like it" to the end of any of the articles or amendments. [/quote] so you guys pretty much believe military trials are kangeroo courts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Acts of war belong in military court, not civilian courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='16 November 2009 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1258416084' post='2003952'] Yes, and it's worth repeating over and over again. Ideologically, we believe that everyone deserves a fair trial, despite what crime they are accused of committing. It's why both a traffic ticket and murderers get the same attention in court. However, we've lost our way because we let emotions cloud our reasoning. Fortunately, the constitution didn't add "only if we feel like it" to the end of any of the articles or amendments. [/quote] It was an act of war. Any soldier captured behind enemy lines out of uniform (and seeing as this military has no country, all areas are behind enemy lines) may be executed. However, I believe we've tried other terrorists in normal courts. While I disagree that civilians should be made into military targets (which is what this trial is doing), it's not exactly a new thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 [quote]Of course, without exploring the Islamic factor, they're wasting everyone's time. They're also going to be wasting quite a few lives.[/quote] They're wasting time, and a whole lot of lives, but at least they're not hurting anyone's feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 [quote name='homeschoolmom' date='17 November 2009 - 09:05 AM' timestamp='1258466757' post='2004202'] Acts of war belong in military court, not civilian courts. [/quote] This was not an act of war. An individual is not a sovereign state. This can be handled just like we handled the much more serious murder Timothy McViegh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' date='17 November 2009 - 11:12 AM' timestamp='1258474362' post='2004232'] This was not an act of war. An individual is not a sovereign state. This can be handled just like we handled the much more serious murder Timothy McViegh. [/quote] It's a military group, not an individual. It is supported by numerous states, and it is itself a nation. This guy represented that nation and he is clearly a traitor. This is treason, this is acting as an agent of a foreign power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='17 November 2009 - 11:39 AM' timestamp='1258475975' post='2004243'] It's a military group, not an individual. It is supported by numerous states, and it is itself a nation. This guy represented that nation and he is clearly a traitor. This is treason, this is acting as an agent of a foreign power. [/quote] What is a military group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' date='17 November 2009 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1258476306' post='2004244'] What is a military group? [/quote] It's an army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' date='17 November 2009 - 11:12 AM' timestamp='1258474362' post='2004232'] This can be handled just like we handled [b]the much more serious[/b] murder Timothy McViegh. [/quote] Are YOU serious?? Why would you even have the nerve to compare them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now