9/11 Trial

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Believe me, I felt the same way. I was really taken by it and everything I had come to respect about the guy went to the toilet... and I think he knew it as I tend to wear my heart on my sleeve... as you probably have noticed by now ... LOL! I was never ashamed to ask him questions about Islam, and what the differences were.. but it all ended up the same way... in a half-heated debate as he kept insinuating 'we' have it all wrong.

 

I'm just glad he's gone from here.

 

I bet!!

 

Well, If it's any consolation, I sent that to my Muslim Friend..and he just replied

 

"What an Ignorant, weird Twat!"...hahahaha

 

 

So, OvS..there is hope yet!!!

[eraser_tr 29]

Dave got what I meant there.

 

As a free democratic society, we can't just throw our legal system out the window. We could have one hell of a legal arguement about whether terrorist acts are acts of war or crimes (though on a far higher order of magnitude than the worst of traditional serial killers). For something to be an act of war, it needs to be a state actor, not a stateless entity. But if considered an act of war, they perps fall under the Geneva Convention. If not an act of war, then they fall under the normal criminal system. That's where we tried Youssef and McVeigh for their acts of terror.

 

Either way there's a system for dealing with the worst, and just as terrible acts have been dealt with through those systems. It's what seperates us from the petty dictators, communists and fascists.

 

Oh, and the lawyer for the defense would almost certainly be court appointed, so its not exactly their choice.

Edited November 17, 2009 by eraser_tr

[GwynO 16]

Yes, Simon... I know.. I'm a little extreme on the lawyer thing... but think about it.... what the hell kind of defense (excuse) can a lawyer possibly conjure up out of a cesspool to defend these pigs?? They were brainwashed? You agree, as a human being, our basic desire is self-preservation and pro-creation. How the hell can anyone possibly be convinced to do otherwise and kill themselves is something we would never know. It's a whole different ball-game over there. In cases like this, that are extreme, why does the law allow a defendant the power of attorney to stand trial? For a heinous crime like this, that privilege should be removed as a clause and they stand trial as their own defendant/attorney. Why should the law be allowed to offer a loop-hole, or a chance for the case to be acquitted when it's obvious to the entire world, by their own admission that they helped plan and execute this act of war.

 

Much like the Spartans of ancient Greece, these men are taught from birth through religion (the most powerful tool to use for good or bad) that they will be preserved in eternity and their families forever taken care of by Allah for doing what they do. You and I simply cannot compare that to anything we have known to be civilized/normal, average human behavior in a democratically governed society... or even in a communist, fascists, socialist... whatever... it's just not a part of life for us. No law can change them, no punishment, no incarceration. They keep coming and will forever until their goal of 100% Islamic rule and law is in place. Unlike WWII where Hitler had is insane dream, these people have taken that to an all new level. It's like you are dealing with 10 million Hitlers... each one capable of being his own Hitler and influencing each other. Mostly all TRAINED in military style tactics and use of weapons good enough to take down lesser militaries and smaller societies.

 

I mean... what do you do with this??? You sentence them to death, you create more of them for sure... you leave them in prison, you pay out the ying-yang for them forever like a really bad STD.

 

This is not going to end anytime soon.

 

OvS

 

Yes, I fear you are only too right, but I'm also glad that there are people out there capable of putting together such a case without falling back on ridiculous notions of race and so on. Too often this big picture is tarnished with the race card, accusations of bigotry, decried as "far right" yet the bitter truth is that this modern extremism is little different from that of the Mediaeval times. Both born out of total assurance that they ARE right, that THEIR God is the ONLY God, and he wants a world where people only worship Him as prescribed by the glorious leaders of the people, be they Marxists, Muslim or Christian; this kind of unbending self assurance cannot be reasoned with, we are truly peeing in the wind and wasting resources trying to fund people out of a mindset, one can only imagine the futility had a technologically superior culture tried to reason with, or barter the civility of Inquisition era Europe without first kicking their ass severely at every attempted book burning or witchburning.. no matter what the commonly held religious preconceptions of the protagonists were, if the witch was at the stake, what would you do? Say it's their culture and let them get on with it, or stop it! The reason why I add this is to underline that Europe's Enlightenment took a good few hundred years with help from, ironically, the Muslim world that had kept the works of earlier civilisations going, works of Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle that fuelled the intellectual revolution in Europe may just have to be re used this time by the extremists. Only when people in the fundamentalist communities stand up for their right to doubt, to question, everything, even to doubt publicly the existence of God, freely, as per the European enlightenment, could the "War on Terror" be said to be over, until that point we will face the ugly sight of witchburning, book burning, bigotry and self assured theocracy wherever we turn our blind eye.

 

If the perpetrators of such outrages as 9/11 are truly to be served with justice, they would be made a part of the "War on Terror", their names forever invoked with our resolve to harm, damage, reverse, overturn, demolish and destroy the freedom that they have to express their ideology, only by stamping out the ability of the fundamentalists to commit atrocities against each other can we say we have won, or all we will have done is to give them time to regroup and try us again. So how to deny this freedom to commit terror? Giving up is not an option, annihilation is a PR nightmare, so we only really have one option left, and that's to help insight an Enlightenment2 wherever it may appear on the terrorists' horizon, in Student uprisings, in Democratic movements, in short to aid and abet the changes they themselves have to make while we wait out the few hundred years it took Europe to do the same. Sad, but in the face of the options: Miracle, extermination, giving up and ignoring them, hoping they leave us alone... we really only do have the option of continuing this as long as we live, or until inbreeding depletes their stock whichever happens first.

 

 

 

 

 

[+Typhoid 231]

Dave got what I meant there.

 

As a free democratic society, we can't just throw our legal system out the window. We could have one hell of a legal arguement about whether terrorist acts are acts of war or crimes (though on a far higher order of magnitude than the worst of traditional serial killers). For something to be an act of war, it needs to be a state actor, not a stateless entity. But if considered an act of war, they perps fall under the Geneva Convention. If not an act of war, then they fall under the normal criminal system. That's where we tried Youssef and McVeigh for their acts of terror.

 

Either way there's a system for dealing with the worst, and just as terrible acts have been dealt with through those systems. It's what seperates us from the petty dictators, communists and fascists.

 

Oh, and the lawyer for the defense would almost certainly be court appointed, so its not exactly their choice.

 

 

I have to differ with you on a couple of points - although I agree fundamentally with your overall position.

 

"For something to be an act of war, it needs to be a state actor, not a stateless entity."

 

this is the core and key point. But I will differ on whether a non-state organization can engage in war and commit acts of war. I would suggest they most certainly can and have over the years. Any revolutionary group would be considered a non-state actor until the day they won. That does not make them any less a combatant in a full scale war. I would point out that our own history bears that out as our forces were not considered a "state actor" until we won, but were most certainly accorded and treated according to the general laws of war at the time.

 

in this specific case - a non-state actor (Al Queda) has formally declared war on the US. Do we pretend then that any participants are not accorded the laws of war but are to be treated as civilian criminals in the courts? It is a rather key question since under the Geneva Convention - member states are prohibited from subjecting POW's to prosecution in their civilian courts.

 

Now, with respect to treating these enemy combattants under the Geneva Convention, there are some very detailed requirements, such as operating under the command and discipline of a recognized enemy and the wearing of a distinctive uniform as well as recognizing the Geneva Convention and internatinal laws of war. The enemy combattants we have captured belonging to Al Queda, the Taliban, and any other number of splinter organizations have certainly been organized, have been in a declared war with us, operate without uniforms and do not recognize or adhere to the Geneva Convention or any other internationally recognized laws of war.

 

We did, however, as a matter of policy directed by President Bush extend to these enemy combattants the Geneva Convention which prohibits subjecting them to prosecution in our civilian courts. Instead, they are supposed to be tried by a military procedure to establish their status and then be held indefinitely until the end of the conflict.

 

so now, having first extended to them the status of POW and the protections of the Geneva Convention as enemy combattants engaged in a recognized war authorized by our Congress (with a resolution authorizing military action in the absense of a declared nation-state (although one could certainly argue about Afghanistan)), we are now going to violate those Geneva Conventions and subject these vermin to a civilian trial likely leading to a death penalty.

 

somewhere, the rule of law has gone off the rails.

 

In my opinion, they should be treated as POW's and subject to military proceedings as enemy combattants. This move will turn this entire issue into an incredible circus. It will be us who is put on trial more than the mass-murdering terrorists.

[eraser_tr 29]

Like I said, you could have one hell of a legal arguement.

[+Typhoid 231]

Like I said, you could have one hell of a legal arguement.

 

and we will!

 

let the circus begin!!

[+Dave 2,322]

Yes it will be a circus and it will make news for months and in the end they will still be found guilty. You watch, it will be "painful" but it will happen.

[eraser_tr 29]

Yes it will be a circus and it will make news for months and in the end they will still be found guilty. You watch, it will be "painful" but it will happen.

 

I think he meant between him and me, but I just have too much to focus on in the next day and a half for a sparring match

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

I think Typhoid has got it bang on!

 

What I would do in the Situation, is make them Enemy Combatants (this is a war on terror after all?) and have them as POW's

 

BUT.... by their actions on 9/11, they would have commited a war crime..therefore they would stand trial by the Military...and subsequently hanged....Job Done!

 

(sigh) If only life were that simple

Edited November 18, 2009 by UK_Widowmaker

[Dave63 13]

This is going to be the biggest cluster f*#k media circus EVER.