http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575892,00.html
And, for balance:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5722507.shtml
Printable View
Another stupid kamikaze that, with luck will kill himself without harming people.
There arent many words to describe how dumb, idiot.....these guys are.
You wonder about what...the perpetrator or the internal investigation about the events?
fox news lol.
i thought this area wass for SERIOUS discussion and debate.
Both, and also, if the event is determined (as it appears that it must) to be a terrorist act, whether it would be tried in a military court, given recent events vis a vis the Gitmo/NYC scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
We may be on the verge of a fantastical rationalization.
God love you, Allen, but that was a supremely stupid post; if you cared to look elsewhere (that is to say, somewhere other than Foxnews) you'd find the same story - ffs, I even gave you an alternate link; CBS, if you can be bothered to look.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien5
If you're going to muck about in here, elevate your game, or go back to the shallow end of the pool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien5
I think your crude attempt to cut off an/any avenue of debate because it doesn't pass your personal sniff test is a very serious problem for you...if it is a debate you are after.
What difference would it make?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You're kidding.
Right?
No, I'm not.
I think the desire to proclaim it as an act of terrorism is politically driven. A charge of treason seems more appropriate.
Oh Yes - quite true.
Are we allowed to think or speak of it as an Islamic event at all (at all).
Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Assuming you're willing to think or speak of the Dr. Tiller murder as a "Christian event".
Goose/gander type of thing, you know.
A reasonable request.
Any more qualifying quibbles?
sorry, It's not the same story, it's a story told to you by different organizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Both, and also, if the event is determined (as it appears that it must) to be a terrorist act, whether it would be tried in a military court, given recent events vis a vis the Gitmo/NYC scenario.
We may be on the verge of a fantastical rationalization.
God love you, Allen, but that was a supremely stupid post; if you cared to look elsewhere (that is to say, somewhere other than Foxnews) you'd find the same story - ffs, I even gave you an alternate link; CBS, if you can be bothered to look.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien5
If you're going to muck about in here, elevate your game, or go back to the shallow end of the pool.
Ah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien5sorry, It's not the same story, it's a story told to you by different organizations.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
So, we are left to...what, precisely?
Are the basic facts in dispute somehow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerSure.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Assuming you're willing to think or speak of the Dr. Tiller murder as a "Christian event".
Goose/gander type of thing, you know.
Oh, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
A trifle curious where you're going with this but I'm sure you'll get there eventually.
Do you think the events of 9/11 were perpetrated in the names of Allah and the Koran - Islam?
What difference does it make?
Were terrorist acts performed on 9/11?
Yes.
So the man should be locked up for supporting charities that allegedly gave money to people involved in Terrorism? is that a crime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Were these acts undertaken in the name of Islam?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Killing people would be a crime, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien5
The other may be a motive, I suppose, if we're allowed to ask the question.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Were these acts undertaken in the name of Islam?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
So?
Are we allowed to refer to the events of 9/11 as terrorist in nature, and the perpetrators as terrorists?
First of all, from whom are you seeking permission and why?
Secondly, if you have something to say why not just lay it out and quit leading us by the nose?
Not seeking permission at all, just trying to determine whether the PC crowd has laid claim to this event as it does all others.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
As to the latter, I promise your nose will suffer no damage for my having led you by it.
Who is this "PC" crowd and what qualifications do they have?
If you're going to build a straw man, shouldn't he be taller than 6"?
This coy act is bullshit.
If there was a PC crowd, it was the Axis of Evil- Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush- who stifled any dissent by labeling it "un-American" and "soft on terrorism".
Nobody was denying that a terrorist attack had taken place on 9/11, just Iraq's involvement.
If the evidence supports that Hasan was indeed a self-styled terrorist- as opposed to just a random nut-job- and Ft. Hood was politically motivated, then so be it...who are you expecting to muzzle you?
Again, if you have a point, make it for crissake.
Okay, let's cut to the chase:
Why a public trial in a public venue rather than a military tribunal for the Gitmo crowd?
Please answer by means other than merely saying "why not?".
Isn't the justice system one of the main bulwarks of the democracy we're so eager to impose on the rest of the world?
Public trials in public venues- i.e., transparency- are supposed to be one of the things that's admirable about our system and yet you imply that it's not robust enough to handle a case like this.
What- if anything- does the choice of venue have to do with the "labeling as terrorist/Islam" thing you introduced into the thread, or was that just a random diversion?
I still have absolutely no idea what you think the point of this thread is.
Me either and I've been following it, patiently waiting for it go go somewhere for 2 or 3 days now... :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
I think I'll give up now...
Transparency?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
You mean that principle promised but only selectively practiced by the Obama administration?
Ah.
Okay, why is transparency so desirable in this instance?
Do you want to gamble a public trial will satisfy it's own requirement of unanimity in rendering a verdict?
I suppose 'fairness' would seat a Muslim or two on the jury, wouldn't you?
Feel free to make your next (incorrect) leap, presumably wherein you accuse me of a racial or religious bias.
Along another line, perhaps you remember the trial of OJ Simpson, who was found not guilty, not because he was actually innocent, but rather to service a felt need to put paid to the racist belief that black men have been historically held to wrongful account in criminal matters.
I mean, really - the mob fixes this kind of stuff all the time, and they don't even have the Islam's constitutional sanction.
Why do you think this isn't a risk?
One last thing:
Even if it all works out just fine (one may wonder what "fine" might be), this trial will set a precedent for the future.
Are you sure you want to obsolete military courts?
Just as an example, you see.
So, a trial in a civilian court is a "gamble"...does this mean a military tribunal is a sure thing?
Anyway, what trial are we talking about here?
Relatively speaking, yes - in both cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Since you asked, I'll take an opinion for each - the Gitmo/NYC trial and whatever eventuates with Hasan/Ft.Hood.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
trial of u.s. army major nidal malik hasan, who is accused of killing 13 and wounding approx 40 at fort hood. victims were mixture of military personnel and civilians. immediate legal jurisdiction over the murder trial is military court. federal prosecution could charge him with other crimes (such as violation of antiterrorism law) and either stage a second trial or just supercede the military trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
as for whether someone can or should be tried for the crime of terrorism: i suggest that we should have first provided precise, comprehensive definitions of "terrorist" & "terrorism" and demonstrated the ability/willingness to apply the terms consistently before we outlawed them & proposed war against them. so far, i think the terms have not been well-defined, not been consistently applied (see history of references to u.s.-allied terrorists as "freedom fighters"), and have functioned better as pejoratives and propaganda than as technical or legal denotations.
That's not a bad post.
Please don't take exception to my having noted this.
So why not eliminate civil courts in favor of the (apparently) superior military tribunal system?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
In fact, why not eliminate trials altogether?
You seem to believe that guilt has already been determined, what happened to the presumption of innocence?
That's quite a leap.
Try again.