Where the U.S. went wrong on the Christmas Day bomber - Page 2

Where the U.S. went wrong on the Christmas Day bomber

This is a discussion on Where the U.S. went wrong on the Christmas Day bomber within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Corwin How many people who had nothing to do with 9/11 have to die, or be tortured, or forced out of their ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26
  1. #16
    Member Array Impetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
    How many people who had nothing to do with 9/11 have to die, or be tortured, or forced out of their homes with no hope of return? How many people have to live in squalor in war zones with everything they worked for their whole lives destroyed by American bombs and artillery? How much misery and death and destruction do we have to rain down on millions of innocent people before we are satisfied that the deaths of 9/11 are avenged?

    "Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord". We have sold our souls to the devil, and for what? So we can feel a little better because we "did something" about 9/11?
    You seem to think that somewhere in my post I stated I supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I never said this. I'm saying that as far as I'm concerned we are at war with Al Queda. And I wont be "satisfied" until Al Queda lays down its arms, or is eradicated. I'd prefer this be done without large scale invasions and lengthy occupations. So I think we might agree on something in all this. I fear this might be getting hostile though, and I don't want there to be any ill-feelings here. I was honestly joking about putting anybody up against a wall, except maybe Osama himself.


    But I suppose I might just be disciplined again for taking a thread off topic.
    "If it ain't a mess, it'll do till the mess gets here."
    -Sheriff Bell, No Country for Old Men


  2. #17
    Member Array Corwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Impetus View Post
    You seem to think that somewhere in my post I stated I supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I never said this. I'm saying that as far as I'm concerned we are at war with Al Queda. And I wont be "satisfied" until Al Queda lays down its arms, or is eradicated. I'd prefer this be done without large scale invasions and lengthy occupations. So I think we might agree on something in all this. I fear this might be getting hostile though, and I don't want there to be any ill-feelings here. I was honestly joking about putting anybody up against a wall, except maybe Osama himself.


    But I suppose I might just be disciplined again for taking a thread off topic.
    Well if it's Al Queda we're at war with, there sure is a lot of "collateral damage" going on. Personally I think Al Queda is just a convenient cover for another agenda, but that would be straying off-topic too.

    Sorry if I read more into your post than what was there.

  3. #18
    New Member Array jaydarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
    Well if it's Al Queda we're at war with, there sure is a lot of "collateral damage" going on. Personally I think Al Queda is just a convenient cover for another agenda, but that would be straying off-topic too.

    Sorry if I read more into your post than what was there.
    I'm of that same belief as well but I quit fighting that battle several years back.
    Last edited by jaydarl; February 18th, 2010 at 10:04 AM.

  4. #19
    Member Array Impetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    44
    Yeah. Lets not take this thread in the "Alex Jones" direction. I think we may agree on more than our posts revealed.
    "If it ain't a mess, it'll do till the mess gets here."
    -Sheriff Bell, No Country for Old Men

  5. #20
    Distinguished Member Array AutoFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Arid Zone A
    Posts
    1,561
    I'm sorry, but as someone who but for the grace of God almost lost a family member in the 9/11 attacks, I don't see the scum who planned, financed and carried out the attacks as members of a criminal organization. They are terrorists, pure and simple. There is a difference between them and the Mafia, for example. We may not have officially declared war on them, but they sure have on us. They have stated so. They want us dead, maimed, cowering in terror, our cities damaged and our society destroyed, because they are intolerant fanatics who wish the world stopped changing hundreds of years ago. Any foreign Islamic terrorist we captured should be interrogated by the intelligence and military agencies, and since their Miranda rights would be violated by such interrogations, they should then be tried in military tribunals, which every Supreme Court that has heard cases on have found Constitutional. To not use these captured terrorists as intelligence sources would be criminally negligent. The next attack might kill tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands or millions, depending on what they use.

    Invading Afghanistan and/or Iraq is not how I would have gone after the terrorists behind 9/11, but I doubt you'd like my approach either.

  6. #21
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    The Bush administration got shot down by SCOTUS because their military tribunals did not follow the UCMJ. Well, duh!!! If you are going to have a military tribunal you have to follow the UCMJ.

  7. #22
    Member Array Corwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by AutoFan View Post
    I'm sorry, but as someone who but for the grace of God almost lost a family member in the 9/11 attacks, I don't see the scum who planned, financed and carried out the attacks as members of a criminal organization. They are terrorists, pure and simple. There is a difference between them and the Mafia, for example. We may not have officially declared war on them, but they sure have on us. They have stated so. They want us dead, maimed, cowering in terror, our cities damaged and our society destroyed, because they are intolerant fanatics who wish the world stopped changing hundreds of years ago. Any foreign Islamic terrorist we captured should be interrogated by the intelligence and military agencies, and since their Miranda rights would be violated by such interrogations, they should then be tried in military tribunals, which every Supreme Court that has heard cases on have found Constitutional. To not use these captured terrorists as intelligence sources would be criminally negligent. The next attack might kill tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands or millions, depending on what they use.

    Invading Afghanistan and/or Iraq is not how I would have gone after the terrorists behind 9/11, but I doubt you'd like my approach either.
    We don't know who is a foreign Islamic terrorist until we try and convict them in a real court of law, not some new-fangled "military tribunal". You are advocating that we become what we fought against for over five decades in the Cold War. Are you old enough to remember when that was the difference between "them" and "us"? That they had kangaroo courts with fancy names and executed or imprisoned people based on "confessions" forced by torture, while we presumed everyone innocent until proven guilty in a real court with due process presentation of facts and the protection of rights and a jury of peers?

    The neo-cons and their liberal-hawk cronies are taking us to the depths of authoritarian depravity. If that satisfies your desire for revenge, just know that it comes at the price of your liberties. Whatever they do to a "terrorist", they can do to you. And the way things are going, they probably will be doing it to you or your children in the not-too-distant future.

    Be careful what you wish for...

  8. #23
    Distinguished Member Array AutoFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Arid Zone A
    Posts
    1,561
    Military Tribunals or Courts are not "new-fangled", they have existed for as long as we have had a formal military. Seeing as how they are used by our military to dispense justice outside of our civilian court system, I hardly think they are the kangaroo courts you seem to think they are. They are real courts used to determine the guilt or innocence of American citizens who are in the military. And I am more than old enough to remember the Soviet Union and the Cold War (and Viet Nam). Which is how I know how we treated spies. They were not put in the normal civilian justice system.

    Once again, there is a difference between an American citizen accused of committing a crime domestically and a foreign national who has attempted to commit an act of terrorism witnessed by a number of intended victims and who admits he is a member of a terrorist organization.

    I am a Libertarian who loves his country, does not blindly trust his government, but who knows the consequences of ignoring dangers. And our legal system is not meant to be a suicide pact. It is not revenge I seek, but prevention of a greater terrorist act than has already been committed. I can guarantee you that if another terrorist act on the magnitude of 9/11 or even Oklahoma City were committed again, it would result in the wholesale gutting of our freedoms.

  9. #24
    Member Array Corwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    50
    You are incorrect about what these "military tribunals" are. They are not the military court system as defined by the UCMJ. They are indeed new-fangled as they were just created a few years ago (unconstutionally, I might add), and they are kangaroo courts according to several of the officers who were assigned to them as judges, prosecutors, and defense counsels and have since resigned in protest.

    Any "act of terrorism" is, by definition, a crime and we are not legally "at war" with anyone so there is no justification for treating "spies" as anything other than criminals.

    You say you are a libertarian, but to say "our legal system is not meant to be a suicide pact" is right out of the neocon script. It's been over nine years since 9/11 and it's still being used to gut our freedoms. Another crime of that magnitude would indeed accelerate our enslavement, but it isn't really necessary since the powers that be have been getting so much mileage out of the original event.

    There is really nothing standing in the way of terrorist attacks on our malls, shopping centers, churches, infrastructure, etc. and those attacks on a regular (or even sporadic) basis would do the same for "the terrorist cause" as one big one. So why is that not happening... hmmmm... I don't consider myself to be a 9/11 Truther, but I have to wonder what's really going on when I contemplate these facts. Ross Perot used to say "follow the money", maybe he had a point...

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,356
    People should see that there are good points on both sides of the debate.

    What happened in December is not something that just happened out of no where. There should be clear cut policies (laws) in place at this point. Frankly, I think the problem is the executive and judicial are naturally confused on how to apply their respective authority because the law making legislative had not done the due diligence.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  11. #26
    Member Array Impetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    44
    Agreed. Both sides have good points. The idea that these individuals, in a traditional court system, could get released on a legal technicality, is a frighting one. I don't want these people to ever do harm again. But at the same time, we don't want to dispose of the very liberties that so many generations have struggled to maintain. Its a moral Catch 22, in a way.
    "If it ain't a mess, it'll do till the mess gets here."
    -Sheriff Bell, No Country for Old Men

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. shoe bomber...
    By Sheldon J in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: February 10th, 2011, 04:35 PM
  2. Iran inaugurates nation's first unmanned bomber. A real one, not a suicide bomber!
    By GunnyBunny in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: August 24th, 2010, 11:19 AM
  3. Wrong place wrong time scenario
    By tacman605 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: July 17th, 2010, 03:41 PM
  4. Another What if, bomber situation.
    By 4my sons in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 30th, 2006, 10:46 AM
  5. Another What if, bomber situation.
    By 4my sons in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 25th, 2006, 05:33 PM

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors