NY Trial for Alleged 9/11 Mastermind

[quote]orion wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
tme wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Why is this piece of shit being afforded Constitutional rights?

Because you aren’t them. No matter what comparisons people want to make between you, no matter how much morons want to say you deserved 9/11, you just aren’t them.

Are you saying here that while US citizens are being stripped of THEIR rights, foreign invaders are getting them instead? I am asking this in all sincerity. I don’t mean this as a slam, I really don’t, but I have a hard time following your posts sometimes.

Because we don’t torture our prisoners. We don’t deny habeas corpus. We don’t sink to the level of whatever piece of shit attacks us and use “well he did it first” as justification. Because we’re a nation of laws and we apply those laws evenly and without prejudice.

Some of what we’ve done over the past several years in the name of “national security” is going to come out in a public trial, and it’s going to cause some shame and hopefully some reevaluation of who we really are. Hopefully after the pieces of shit who attacked us are dealt with, the other pieces of shit who ordered their torture will also be brought to justice.

Edit: I also oppose the death sentence for these people, as well as labeling them “war criminals” or anything else that would cause their glorification to other extremists. They’re common criminals, and making martyrs of them is the worst thing we can do. Send them to solitary at one of the supermax facilities for many, many more years than they can be expected to live. Gone and soon forgotten.

Wow ~ that’s a pretty high minded post. I’m guessing you are pretty upset that Obama continues to use predators / drones to target and kill Al Qaeda in Pakistan correct? No miranda rights or warrents or subpoenas.

Even when there is collateral damage…? I’m not hearing much from the left (or therapeutic thinkers like you) on this little issue. No screams about “justice being denied”. How do you explain that?

Right ~ you can’t.

I don’t know why this is so tough on people.

The whole of human history is replete with, indeed consists of, examples.

When a very large body of armed people are unwaveringly committed to hastening your demise, you must hasten theirs first by whatever means are required.

Here’s a tip. When you have to follow rules that they don’t. You lose. Even if you’re bigger than they are.

These twerps who worry more about what these barbarians think OF us than they do about what they’re doing TO us are destroying the country my children will live in. It’s much more than some words of disagreement on a computer screen.

I think we are more worried about what YOU will do to US in the name of doing it to THEM.

The law of unintended consequences is not suspended in times of “war”.

[/quote]

You are probably good to go, providing you don’t sashay around with “soldier of allah” business cards, give lectures about pouring boiling oil into non believers, preach how Allah expects full loyalty and to establish an Islamic state to please Allah even by force is condoned in Islam, or commit mass murder in the name of your religion.

I guess you fall into the camp of those that say ~ as they are having their plane hijacked and aimed towards tall buildings ~ “At least we didn’t racially profile them… WE took the high road”.

Well done bro.

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
<<< You are probably good to go, providing you don’t sashay around with “soldier of allah” business cards, give lectures about pouring boiling oil into non believers, preach how Allah expects full loyalty and to establish an Islamic state to please Allah even by force is condoned in Islam, or commit mass murder in the name of your religion.

I guess you fall into the camp of those that say ~ as they are having their plane hijacked and aimed towards tall buildings ~ “At least we didn’t racially profile them… WE took the high road”.

Well done bro. >>>[/quote]

He’s in the camp of America hating international armchair anarchists. Believe it or not every so often he does make a very solid and insightful point, but alas he will inevitably follow it immediately up with some kinda goofy cross eyed drivel.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
<<< You are probably good to go, providing you don’t sashay around with “soldier of allah” business cards, give lectures about pouring boiling oil into non believers, preach how Allah expects full loyalty and to establish an Islamic state to please Allah even by force is condoned in Islam, or commit mass murder in the name of your religion.

I guess you fall into the camp of those that say ~ as they are having their plane hijacked and aimed towards tall buildings ~ “At least we didn’t racially profile them… WE took the high road”.

Well done bro. >>>

He’s in the camp of America hating international armchair anarchists. Believe it or not every so often he does make a very solid and insightful point, but alas he will inevitably follow it immediately up with some kinda goofy cross eyed drivel.[/quote]

Thanks. Ask him for me: “why does the US attorney general support the death penalty for KSM, but exhibits so much timidity over the whole waterboarding thing?” Also, clarify how it’s ok for us to keep using drones to pick off Al Qaeda in Pakistan with out subpoenas or warrents?. Also, why it was ok to have our president give the ok for US snipers to deflate the heads of those Somalia pirates who hijacked our cargo ship back in April of 08 ~ without reading them their rights? What happened to “hope and change”? It’s all so confusing.

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
<<< You are probably good to go, providing you don’t sashay around with “soldier of allah” business cards, give lectures about pouring boiling oil into non believers, preach how Allah expects full loyalty and to establish an Islamic state to please Allah even by force is condoned in Islam, or commit mass murder in the name of your religion.

I guess you fall into the camp of those that say ~ as they are having their plane hijacked and aimed towards tall buildings ~ “At least we didn’t racially profile them… WE took the high road”.

Well done bro. >>>

He’s in the camp of America hating international armchair anarchists. Believe it or not every so often he does make a very solid and insightful point, but alas he will inevitably follow it immediately up with some kinda goofy cross eyed drivel.

Thanks. Ask him for me: “why does the US attorney general support the death penalty for KSM, but exhibits so much timidity over the whole waterboarding thing?” Also, clarify how it’s ok for us to keep using drones to pick off Al Qaeda in Pakistan with out subpoenas or warrents?. Also, why it was ok to have our president give the ok for US snipers to deflate the heads of those Somalia pirates who hijacked our cargo ship back in April of 08 ~ without reading them their rights? What happened to “hope and change”? It’s all so confusing. [/quote]

Correction: Those Somalia pirates had their head deflated in April 09…

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Why is this piece of shit being afforded Constitutional rights?[/quote]

Because Obama promised change, and boy oh boy are we ever getting it!

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Criminals in the supermax facilities have been able to communicate with the outside world which is the last thing we want these terrorists doing. Their followers aren’t going to forget about them. [/quote]

case in point: the bearded pic of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed which popped up on terrorist websites.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Why is this piece of shit being afforded Constitutional rights?

We don’t have to give them constitutional rights until they are on US soil. This is all about the democrats desire to politicize the ongoing overseas contingency operation.

That is blatant nonsense because the US constitution, ahem, constitutes what the US government can or cannot do, wherever it may act.

You are very very wrong about that. Non US citizens who are not on US soil are not entitled to the rights of a US citizen. A non US citzen has to be physically on US soil to be entitled to the same rights as a US citizen.

And again:

The US Constitution does not apply " to US citizens".

It addresses the federal government of the United States and tells it what it can or cannot do.

There is not even a war on right now, because congress has not declared one.

You do not know what you are talking about. The constitution does not spell everything out in black and white, it has some grey areas like Executive priviledge to allow the government flexibility to deal with new contingencies.

You are living in a dreamworld if you do not think that there is a war going on. We have a foreign army that has taken over other countries, invaded our country, caused mass casualties and is seeking to overthrow our government to impose it’s own form of government upon us.

If that is not war what is it?

The point is that neither this administration not the last can have it both ways.

Either they follow the constitution, well then you have to declare war a certain way and then its on.

Or they dont and then they do not get to be a “war time” president.

To selectively ignore the constitution whenever it does not suit them has a long tradition and is still wrong.

This country has only declared war five times in it’s entire history. We have fought a lot of wars without a formal declaration of war.

Before Hitler delcared war on the US the US navy was fighting in the battle of the Atlantic and losing ships to U-boats.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor we immediately fought back, we didn’t wait for congress to formally declare war.

There was no declaration of war when we fought in Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Panama, the gulf war.

So if you think that in our past we have only ever fought after a declaration of war or that we need a declaration of war in order to use the military you are very much mistaken and don’t know what you are talking about.[/quote]

Apparently our self-appointed Constitutional Scholar, orion, has never heard of the War Powers Act:

“The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541â??1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.”

And guess what…it’s even Constitutional.