Hypocrisy in labellin guy flying plane into IRS building "not a terrorist"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Blame America First boilerplate. :tsk:



no.

Blame Bush First.

neither of those things have anything to do with Real Americans. nor do they have to do with big global problems that many are so quick to locate the source of in the US. as you know, i often take heat from non-Americans because i actually am a fairly consistent defender of many of this countries values and it's culture. i don't suffer anti-Americanism lightly.

but torture and the invasion of Iraq are so contrary to what this country is actually based on, that the only way i can deal with it is to chalk it up to post-9/11 PTSD.
 
one was a tragedy, this was a mostly prevented one -- the officers are fine, the gunman is dead -- yet we do learn a lot when white terrorists attack, and in my opinion, it provokes exactly the right response from the right and the left. but when someone's Muslim ... then we randomly invade sovereign nations and torture people.

I read that the white terrorist was clearly diagnosed as a manic depressive. So I don't know what other response we could reasonably expect other than...

:shrug: he probably shouldn't have guns on him :shrug:
 
I read that the white terrorist was clearly diagnosed as a manic depressive. So I don't know what other response we could reasonably expect other than...

:shrug: he probably shouldn't have guns on him :shrug:



agreed, he probably shouldn't have had guns on him. it's not like he was going into a Starbucks or anything.

but had he been Muslim ... what would have been the response?
 
agreed, he probably shouldn't have had guns on him. it's not like he was going into a Starbucks or anything.

but had he been Muslim ... what would have been the response?

:laugh: @ Starbucks.

But to answer your question...the response would be infinitely more media attention.
 
it's interesting how rationally we deal with terrorists when they are white, and then how we overreact when they aren't.
 
it's interesting how rationally we deal with terrorists when they are white, and then how we overreact when they aren't.

Fear that they are linked to Al-Queda or some such group. I don't think theres ever been a terrorist attack in the United States carried out by a Muslim that wasn't a jihad. But you are right, because they are no more/just as dangerous as any white terrorist, like Timothy McVay, or this guy.
 
Fear that they are linked to Al-Queda or some such group. I don't think there's ever been a terrorist attack in the United States carried out by a Muslim that wasn't a jihad.

You got it. Comparing garden-variety whackjobs like Bedell to AQ motivated killers is comparing apples to oranges.

That's why the media hypes Major Hassan and guys like KSM. It's about motivation. And the subject of the day is extremist Jihadism.
 
it's interesting how rationally we deal with terrorists when they are white, and then how we overreact when they aren't.

The white ones tend to be citizens and thusly due constitutional protections. Enemy combatants caught in Afghanistan and Nigerian panty-bombers not so much.
 
but torture and the invasion of Iraq are so contrary to what this country is actually based on, that the only way i can deal with it is to chalk it up to post-9/11 PTSD.

:up:

In the fullness of time a balanced judgement will be formed, mine at this point is approximately on the same wavelength as yours. It was the mood of the times, not the individual actors, be it Bush, Blair, whatever.

I still get quite angry about the Iraq war if I think about it, but in general, these days, I don't.
 
No, I really want to know what you think. I think they do, but I'd like to know what you think.

You think they do. All of them. A Irishman can plead the 5th in an Irish court? A tourist from England over here on holiday can vote in our elections? A man born in Mombasa, Kenya be elected president? Ok, bad example.

United States Constitutional rights don't extend beyond our borders. (You try pleading the 5th in an Irish court.) And non-citizens on U.S. soil have only basic administrative and criminal rights. In addition there are universal human rights. From there you can branch off into international and wartime law.
 
The white ones tend to be citizens and thusly due constitutional protections. Enemy combatants caught in Afghanistan and Nigerian panty-bombers not so much.



it's sad that you don't trust our justice system.

but that's the GOP for you -- pure id, all rage, inchoate resentments.
 
No, I really want to know what you think. I think they do, but I'd like to know what you think.

If we have a goddamned AQ trained airplane panty bomber caught, for example, we don't give him a lawyer after 50 minutes of lame questions from the local yockels, without any consultation with national authorities. I'm talking the heads of FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD, whatever acronym, you name it. They were out of the equation.

And we don't try him or badnicks like KSM in Manhattan because a show trial would look cool in Manhattan. Sorry. (Hmmm...maybe we let the Pakistanis torture folks like them instead, oops! let's move on...)

Does that mean we waterboard or cut off fingers? :rolleyes: Obviously not. But let's get real here. These enemy combatants are not common criminals. They are not people who any legitimate country would vouch for. They were caught (hopefully) before they could kill hundreds of Americans in the air, on the ground, whatever. They should not be treated like common thieves.



Sorry about that rant, Martha, not personal! :cute:
 
it's sad that you don't trust our justice system.

but that's the GOP for you -- pure id, all rage, inchoate resentments.

This coming from someone that argues that capital punishment should be abolished because inherent racism infects our courthouses and that he doesn't "trust our justice system" to execute only guilty parties on death row.
 
You think they do. All of them. A Irishman can plead the 5th in an Irish court? A tourist from England over here on holiday can vote in our elections? A man born in Mombasa, Kenya be elected president? Ok, bad example.

United States Constitutional rights don't extend beyond our borders. (You try pleading the 5th in an Irish court.) And non-citizens on U.S. soil have only basic administrative and criminal rights. In addition there are universal human rights. From there you can branch off into international and wartime law.

1.)Obama's officially released birth certificate, which he released some time ago, states where he was born. Was not Kenya.

You accuse me and others of being left wing crazy, but then you keep repeating a complete lie that the tin foil on the head folks started.

2.)You ever read the Constitution?

It does in fact apply to every person we detain. It does not say "no citizen" it says "no person."

Plus, Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions, which we have signed, and therefore made the highest law of the land, clearly gives those termed as enemy combatants basic rights. Does that necessarily mean article 3 trials, no. Has it been done alot before? Yes. Without any national security issues, yes.

A military tribunal with some kind of due process that does not rise to the level of article 3 courts is perfectly appropriate under our Constitution and treaties we have signed. The kind of tribunals Bush tried to set up, not so much.

You can't plead the 5th in an Irish court because they do not have the 5th.
 
You think they do. All of them. A Irishman can plead the 5th in an Irish court? A tourist from England over here on holiday can vote in our elections? A man born in Mombasa, Kenya be elected president? Ok, bad example.

United States Constitutional rights don't extend beyond our borders. (You try pleading the 5th in an Irish court.) And non-citizens on U.S. soil have only basic administrative and criminal rights. In addition there are universal human rights. From there you can branch off into international and wartime law.

I was speaking of foreigners here in the US.

And wtf with the Kenyan-born president reference?
 
Does that mean we waterboard or cut off fingers? :rolleyes: Obviously not. But let's get real here. These enemy combatants are not common criminals. They are not people who any legitimate country would vouch for. They were caught (hopefully) before they could kill hundreds of Americans in the air, on the ground, whatever. They should not be treated like common thieves.

So we become the monster?
 
If we have a goddamned AQ trained airplane panty bomber caught, for example, we don't give him a lawyer after 50 minutes of lame questions from the local yockels, without any consultation with national authorities. I'm talking the heads of FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD, whatever acronym, you name it. They were out of the equation.

And we don't try him or badnicks like KSM in Manhattan because a show trial would look cool in Manhattan. Sorry. (Hmmm...maybe we let the Pakistanis torture folks like them instead, oops! let's move on...)

Does that mean we waterboard or cut off fingers? :rolleyes: Obviously not. But let's get real here. These enemy combatants are not common criminals. They are not people who any legitimate country would vouch for. They were caught (hopefully) before they could kill hundreds of Americans in the air, on the ground, whatever. They should not be treated like common thieves.



Sorry about that rant, Martha, not personal! :cute:

Did we not have a story of evidence gained by these interogations? Of course the details were fuzzy, but probably just as fuzzy as the waterboarding answers we got...:shrug:

INDY won't answer me, so I ask you, define and show me when and where "enemy combatants" are found.
 
They should not be treated like common thieves.

I did not know common thieves get hit with a shitload of attempted murder charges, conspiracy in aid of international terrorism charges, continuing criminal enterprise across border charges, etc and then get carted off to the supermax prison in Colorado to cool off until they die.

Usually the common thief gets some probation, and a few days in jail in exchange for promising to keep his nose clean going forward.

The Miranda warnings and other procedural/administrative issues have no bearing on how severely someone is punished.

If anyone wants to find out how much of a reward it is to get Mirandized, try the following experiment next time you are bored: "X" out of the U2 bootleg(I sure as hell won't get that far!), go out and run stop signs, red lights and speed until a cop blue lights you. Then run from the cop- lead them on a big chase, then in a dark area near some woods, bail out of the car and run on foot. When the cops take you down into the thorny bushes and drive their knees into your neck, cuff you and stuff you into the squad car, they will read you your rights as you are still trying to catch your breath from running. Then you will go to the police station, get fingerprinted, etc, and the first call will be to your boss telling him you are in some deep legal shit and wont be in to work tomorrow. Or the next day, or the next day! YOU'RE FIRED, YOU CAN'T MAKE YOUR OBLIGATIONS, AND THEY DON'T WANT AN ASSHOLE CRIMINAL WORKING FOR THEM. Now on to a shitload of money from a friend or relative if you are lucky enough to get bailed out, then a bunch more money on an attorney and court costs, then a few months in county and a nice record that every cop who ever pulls you over again, not to mention every potential future employer can see. Sound like fun to anyone?

The Miranda is the formal beginning of the entire nightmare I just described. It is the police telling you that, in case you didn't notice the blue lights or feel Sgt.Warren take you down and put his knee in you, or feel the handcuffs being applied, YOU HAVE NOW OFFICIALLY ENTERED AN ADVERSERIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. We will now use anything and everything(money, resources, our word) to build a case against you, so at this point, SHUTTING UP may be advisable. Criminals, not known for being too bright, often do not shut up. They will keep talking and keep digging their hole after they have been mirandized. Such was the case with the underwear bomber.

Most of the time it does not even matter if they do not talk, as the actions of the defendant clearly observable by witnesses, police, etc are enough to make the case against them quite well. People do not convict themselves too often, and when interrogations yield valuable information, they are usually done well after an arrest once a rapport has been built. Basic criminal justice/investigative policy right there, you do not even have to be an expert.

There is a very small group of Cheney/Gingrich types, who have already been proven to be frauds in many different ways, who have started this anti Miranda tirade and spread it to the loyal foot soldiers. They have been uniformly denounced by professionals who know what they are talking about(former justice department officials, Colin Powell, Robert Mueller, Robert Gates, Leon Panetta, the list goes on).

If anyone on here wants to believe Cheney who had his chief of staff indicted for a major crime and lied for 8 years, or Gingrich, who divorced his wife on her death bed, put his family on welfare and called up hookers from his congressional office phone over professionals who have dealt with terrorism their entire careers, it says a hell of a lot about how far they will go to toe the right wing line.
 
1.)Obama's officially released birth certificate, which he released some time ago, states where he was born. Was not Kenya.

You accuse me and others of being left wing crazy, but then you keep repeating a complete lie that the tin foil on the head folks started.
That was inserted merely for levity's sake. Some people are too coiled-up just waiting to strike to sense that I guess.

2.)
Plus, Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions, which we have signed, and therefore made the highest law of the land, clearly gives those termed as enemy combatants basic rights. Does that necessarily mean article 3 trials, no. Has it been done alot before? Yes. Without any national security issues, yes.

A military tribunal with some kind of due process that does not rise to the level of article 3 courts is perfectly appropriate under our Constitution and treaties we have signed. The kind of tribunals Bush tried to set up, not so much.
This was setup to protect uniformed soldiers fighting under a flag. Unlawful enemy combatants (such as mercenaries, spies, saboteurs and terrorists; who wear no uniform and target and hide among civilians) do not share those rights. And for good reason, we want to encourage mutual respect for POWs and discourage the other activities.



You can't plead the 5th in an Irish court because they do not have the 5th.

That was the point. Our constitutional protections don't extend beyond our shores, not even to U.S. citizens let alone non-citizens. I don't have freedom of speech in Iran.

Or Canada for that matter. (Again, while true, inserted merely for a cheap laugh.)
 
That was inserted merely for levity's sake. Some people are too coiled-up just waiting to strike to sense that I guess.

You'd never know given how often it is repeated by your type....

This was setup to protect uniformed soldiers fighting under a flag. Unlawful enemy combatants (such as mercenaries, spies, saboteurs and terrorists; who wear no uniform and target and hide among civilians) do not share those rights. And for good reason, we want to encourage mutual respect for POWs and discourage the other activities.

Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions that the US ratified deals with exactly the people you are describing. Go and read it. It was separate from uniformed soldiers.

Taking someone into a court or military tribunal, trying and punishing them does not encourage the activities of these other people, it punishes them.




That was the point. Our constitutional protections don't extend beyond our shores, not even to U.S. citizens let alone non-citizens. I don't have freedom of speech in Iran.

Or Canada for that matter. (Again, while true, inserted merely for a cheap laugh.)

Epic misunderstanding of everything here.

If you are over in Ireland or Canada or in every other country, you do not bring the Constitution with you. You are under the laws of the country that is dealing with you. Of course you do not have free speech in Iran, I never claimed that the constitution extends beyond our shores. It is how Ireland or Iran or Canada conducts business that applies to you should you get caught up over there.

The Constitution applies to how we, our government, conducts business. It makes clear that we conduct it the same way with all "persons" when it comes to detentions. Just like Iran rolls a certain way with respect to free speech, making no distinctions of whether a citizen or non citizen speaks, we roll a certain way with respect to detentions.

Which country's rights and protections did I say the underwear bomber brought with him? Yemen? Nigeria? 2 pretty repressive countries, it was certainly not those rights.

Read amendments 5 and 6: "No person" "The accused" it clearly applies in some way to everyone we detain and commence a prosecution against, regardless of citizenship. It always has, and it has never been controversial either. The Supreme Court, Geneva, numerous examples from Case law have upheld the principle that SOME(not always 100% like you or I) but some due process must apply in all cases, even "enemy combatants." See Hamdan v Rumsfeld for the most recent example.


You don't even understand the arguments being made even when they are put right in front of you. You are the one coiled up to throw a stupid talking point out without even reading what the other person says....

Things like the Geneva Conventions and using our justice system to try terrorists are only controversial with a small group of the lunatic fringe that you follow. Ask any Democrat or Republican in a position of authority in DOJ, FBI, CIA, the military and they will tell you that you are full of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom