All three charged with giving a terrorist believed responsible for the gruesome murder of four contractors in Iraq a little fat lip now exonerated.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/navy-seal-guilty-assaulting-suspected-terrorist/
Here's a pic of this scumbag's work:
(http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/04/22/huertas.jpg?t=1271936639&s=2)
But that terrorist has rights, Guido. It's a travesty.
Why was he taken prisoner, then??
Why not just whack him when they got him?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 06, 2010, 07:37:34 PM
But that terrorist has rights, Guido. It's a travesty.
see they want to label US citizens the same way. Look at McCain last week on the gas bomb failure.
No one has addressed the important issue. . . Was the terrorist read his Miranda rights first?
Quote from: Gaspar on May 07, 2010, 07:23:13 AM
No one has addressed the important issue. . . Was the terrorist read his Miranda rights first?
Oh SNAP!!!
They are trying to get a new bill passed so if you "aid" the terrorists then they can revoke your citizenship. The first part of the story says that you "should" have to be convicted of something. http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/92998364.html (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/92998364.html)
What would the point be of only people convicted of crimes?
This sounds like a very good way to get rid of some tea party people.
Well, if you are going to take a prisoner, then they must be treated according to "rule of law".
If you don't want to play by those rules, then don't take the prisoner.
Kind of like Russia did yesterday with the pirates....
Are we once again a country bound by rule of law??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 07, 2010, 12:26:03 PM
Well, if you are going to take a prisoner, then they must be treated according to "rule of law".
If you don't want to play by those rules, then don't take the prisoner.
Kind of like Russia did yesterday with the pirates....
Are we once again a country bound by rule of law??
People are forgetting that enemy combatants are not the same as the punk who just shot up a 7-11 and fled with $40.
I've got an idea. . .
Every US soldier should have Miranda rights engraved on every bullet. That way each soldier can state that the enemy was "given" his/her Miranda rights.
;D
Seriously, if you break the law and are caught, you are entitled to Miranda rights. If you kill someone, you are entitled to Miranda rights. Even if you park a car full of bombs in the middle of Times Square or blow up a federal building, you are entitled to Miranda rights!
But. . .When you do any of these things and openly claim to be a member of a nation, or group that is currently at war with the United States, or if there is probable cause to suspect that you are part of such a group, you are considered an enemy combatant. At that point it is the duty of federal law enforcement, to extract actionable information related to additional threats.
You are still innocent until proven guilty, however you will not be allowed to idle until it is determined that all threats associated with your actions are neutralized.
Why is that so hard for the bedwetters to get?
Quote from: Gaspar on May 07, 2010, 04:18:40 PM
Even if you park a car full of bombs in the middle of Times Square
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004087-503544.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004087-503544.html)
Several people say that he shouldn't get his Miranda rights. So, yes, right now what you said is true. But if McCain was President it would be pretty obvious he wouldn't have been read his rights. Once you start bending the laws here an there. But yeah, in this instance, at this specific time,they shouldn't have been tried.
But just wait, the GOP is pushing for denying Miranda rights for US Citizens.
Weird that they bothered with this case. Is this fallout from abu ghraib?
Quote from: Trogdor on May 07, 2010, 07:35:06 PM
Weird that they bothered with this case. Is this fallout from abu ghraib?
That's my take. Three SEALs thrown under the political bus.
Gaspar;
But. . .When you do any of these things and openly claim to be a member of a nation, or group that is currently at war with the United States, or if there is probable cause to suspect that you are part of such a group, you are considered an enemy combatant. At that point it is the duty of federal law enforcement, to extract actionable information related to additional threats.
You are still innocent until proven guilty, however you will not be allowed to idle until it is determined that all threats associated with your actions are neutralized.
Why is that so hard for the bedwetters to get?
Geez...what a mess. This just shows how very badly you and so many others have been indoctrinated by the magic Kewl-Ade.
First, they say they are at war with us. We say it is a war on terrorism. But it isn't. The Constitution is and was very specific; war is declared by Congress. It hasn't done that, so we are not in fact at war. We are in conflict.
Second, if we were at war, these people would be prisoners of war. And even if it is an undeclared war, international conventions that WE in fact DID sign state that these people are for all practical purposes and are in fact to be considered prisoners of war for all things judicial.
Third, there is no such thing in either OUR law or international law (you remember that; another part of the Supreme Law of our land??) as an enemy combatant. That is the "1984" equivalent of bulls***!!
And even if there WERE such a thing, we are required IF we are going to actually obey our law to treat them as prisoners of war.
I guess the '"bedwetters actually understand the term "rule of law". More than the RWRE Cheney/Rove/Murdoch cabal.
Too bad Oklahoma can't get it!
Jeez Heir, reading you would make one believe that these SEALs ripped the testicles off of this scumbag terrorist. It was a freakin cut lip.
I'm not condemning the Seals - don't know enough about that particular case. Don't really care at this point, since they apparently have been acquitted (??).
I AM commenting on the history of the last 9 years and the complete redefinition of reality we have suffered from for so long. This is 1984 run rampant and rabid!
If it were me, in the "war" zone, and was convinced of the activities, and the zone was active, I likely would have just whacked him, instead of taking prisoner. But once you take that prisoner, a whole new world of things HAVE to happen that make it all fall under rules that we as an alleged civilized country have promised to adhere to. And now we are actually moving toward that ideal rather than cover-up lip service. (HA! Just realized the possible irony - lip service!!)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 09, 2010, 06:53:22 PM
Gaspar;
But. . .When you do any of these things and openly claim to be a member of a nation, or group that is currently at war with the United States, or if there is probable cause to suspect that you are part of such a group, you are considered an enemy combatant. At that point it is the duty of federal law enforcement, to extract actionable information related to additional threats.
You are still innocent until proven guilty, however you will not be allowed to idle until it is determined that all threats associated with your actions are neutralized.
Why is that so hard for the bedwetters to get?
Geez...what a mess. This just shows how very badly you and so many others have been indoctrinated by the magic Kewl-Ade.
First, they say they are at war with us. We say it is a war on terrorism. But it isn't. The Constitution is and was very specific; war is declared by Congress. It hasn't done that, so we are not in fact at war. We are in conflict.
Second, if we were at war, these people would be prisoners of war. And even if it is an undeclared war, international conventions that WE in fact DID sign state that these people are for all practical purposes and are in fact to be considered prisoners of war for all things judicial.
Third, there is no such thing in either OUR law or international law (you remember that; another part of the Supreme Law of our land??) as an enemy combatant. That is the "1984" equivalent of bulls***!!
And even if there WERE such a thing, we are required IF we are going to actually obey our law to treat them as prisoners of war.
I guess the '"bedwetters actually understand the term "rule of law". More than the RWRE Cheney/Rove/Murdoch cabal.
Too bad Oklahoma can't get it!
Yes, I think you will do.
FOTD's replacement has been made.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 09, 2010, 08:42:58 PM
I'm not condemning the Seals - don't know enough about that particular case. Don't really care at this point, since they apparently have been acquitted (??).
I AM commenting on the history of the last 9 years and the complete redefinition of reality we have suffered from for so long. This is 1984 run rampant and rabid!
If it were me, in the "war" zone, and was convinced of the activities, and the zone was active, I likely would have just whacked him, instead of taking prisoner. But once you take that prisoner, a whole new world of things HAVE to happen that make it all fall under rules that we as an alleged civilized country have promised to adhere to. And now we are actually moving toward that ideal rather than cover-up lip service. (HA! Just realized the possible irony - lip service!!)
AG Holder now gets it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/96825-holder-plans-outreach-to-congress-on-changing-miranda-rules
Woot, then they will be able to hold US Citizens without their rights. Win!
Quote from: Trogdor on May 10, 2010, 07:50:23 AM
Woot, then they will be able to hold US Citizens without their rights. Win!
Comment FAIL!
Quote from: Conan71 on May 10, 2010, 08:42:27 AM
Comment FAIL!
sorry, been on paid *edit: pain* meds. What was the fail?
I am just making the point that just having somebody declare somebody an enemy of the state or a "safety threat" is very open to interpretation and in the future the Government could deem lots of various things "safety threats". Like speaking out against the government. The story is talking about a US citizen not a terrorist caught in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 07, 2010, 07:23:13 AM
No one has addressed the important issue. . . Was the terrorist read his Miranda rights first?
Why would he have been read Miranda rights. This happened in Iraq, no? That only applies on US soil.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 10, 2010, 11:34:41 AM
Why would he have been read Miranda rights. This happened in Iraq, no? That only applies on US soil.
he was just trying to be sarcastic.
Ah, finally...Gaspar admits it. The means justifies the ends. The rule of law only applies while convenient.
Ok, good to know.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on May 10, 2010, 01:01:23 PM
Ah, finally...Gaspar admits it. The means justifies the ends. The rule of law only applies while convenient.
Ok, good to know.
?? . . .as usual.