Poll on Christmas Bomber

[Phatscotty]

wondering how you guys feel he should be dealt with and treated

[Neoteny]

When did legal representation (you know, that right we have) become a bad thing?

[hecter]

Your poll is retarded.

[Woodruff]

How could it possibly be anything other than allowing him HIS RIGHTS?

[Phatscotty]

Wow, I expected the usual from the usual. But I was coming along the lines of, here in America, if you commit a felony, you lose certain rights. If you go to prison, you lose your second amendment rights, and also the right to vote. (everybody pretty much understands and agrees with this)

This man tried to blow up innocent people on an airplane in an act of terrorism. This man is not an American citizen. He still gets rights though? I think he should have an open and shut military tribunal and put to death. It is an act of war, and he was caught red-handed. He is linked to al-qada. We have permission to put a bullet in the head of anyone who tries to ignite a bomb. That doesnt end just cuz the guys didnt ignite it right.

WE DONT PLAY AROUND WITH SUICIDE BOMBERS......GOT IT????????????

[Iliad]

Wow, I expected the usual from the usual. But I was coming along the lines of, here in America, if you commit a felony, you lose certain rights. If you go to prison, you lose your second amendment rights, and also the right to vote. (everybody pretty much understands and agrees with this)

This man tried to blow up innocent people on an airplane in an act of terrorism. This man is not an American citizen. He still gets rights though? I think he should have an open and shut military tribunal and put to death.

But at this point he has not being convicted of committing a felony, merely accused of it. The fact that the trial will be easy for the prosecution is irrelevant. He has only being accused of the crime right now, and there's a little thing called presumption of innocence. Also there's the Declaration of Human rights. People get rights not only because they are citizens but because they are people. Anyway yt doesn't matter if the guilty or not guilty verdict is obvious, the legal system cannot be abandoned and a proper trial with all proper rights still given, as until the trial is over the defendant has to be treated like an innocent.

Seriously look up presumption of innocence dude, it's kinda important in the legal system

[Neoteny]

Wow, I expected the usual from the usual. But I was coming along the lines of, here in America, if you commit a felony, you lose certain rights. If you go to prison, you lose your second amendment rights, and also the right to vote. (everybody pretty much understands and agrees with this)

This man tried to blow up innocent people on an airplane in an act of terrorism. This man is not an American citizen. He still gets rights though? I think he should have an open and shut military tribunal and put to death. It is an act of war, and he was caught red-handed. He is linked to al-qada. We have permission to put a bullet in the head of anyone who tries to ignite a bomb. That doesnt end just cuz the guys didnt ignite it right.

WE DONT PLAY AROUND WITH SUICIDE BOMBERS......GOT IT????????????

Er... felons don't lose their rights until after they are convicted. This guy has not been to court yet. f*ck citizenship. If they are going to be tried in America, they should be treated like a human being. All you idjits preach about "violating the constitution," and then don't give a shit about due process when someone assaults your fragile perspectives. Just like picking and choosing phrases from a holy text, you have no qualms about picking and choosing from the constitution (which you read like a holy text), to lend credibility to your petty biases.

Jesus.

[Phatscotty]

Wow, I expected the usual from the usual. But I was coming along the lines of, here in America, if you commit a felony, you lose certain rights. If you go to prison, you lose your second amendment rights, and also the right to vote. (everybody pretty much understands and agrees with this)

This man tried to blow up innocent people on an airplane in an act of terrorism. This man is not an American citizen. He still gets rights though? I think he should have an open and shut military tribunal and put to death. It is an act of war, and he was caught red-handed. He is linked to al-qada. We have permission to put a bullet in the head of anyone who tries to ignite a bomb. That doesnt end just cuz the guys didnt ignite it right.

WE DONT PLAY AROUND WITH SUICIDE BOMBERS......GOT IT????????????

Er... felons don't lose their rights until after they are convicted. This guy has not been to court yet. f*ck citizenship. If they are going to be tried in America, they should be treated like a human being. All you idjits preach about "violating the constitution," and then don't give a shit about due process when someone assaults your fragile perspectives. Just like picking and choosing phrases from a holy text, you have no qualms about picking and choosing from the constitution (which you read like a holy text), to lend credibility to your petty biases.

Jesus.

so......basically.....what's the difference if you are born here or not then? Everybody gets the rights whether citizen or not? First time I heard that...

P.S. all bets are off when you are talking about war and blowing up airplanes.....for pete's sake man!!!

[Neoteny]

Never heard of human rights. That makes a lot of sense.

It's all clear to me now.

Say it with me now:

"Methinks it is like a weasel."

[Phatscotty]

Wow, I expected the usual from the usual. But I was coming along the lines of, here in America, if you commit a felony, you lose certain rights. If you go to prison, you lose your second amendment rights, and also the right to vote. (everybody pretty much understands and agrees with this)

This man tried to blow up innocent people on an airplane in an act of terrorism. This man is not an American citizen. He still gets rights though? I think he should have an open and shut military tribunal and put to death.

But at this point he has not being convicted of committing a felony, merely accused of it. The fact that the trial will be easy for the prosecution is irrelevant. He has only being accused of the crime right now, and there's a little thing called presumption of innocence. Also there's the Declaration of Human rights. People get rights not only because they are citizens but because they are people. Anyway yt doesn't matter if the guilty or not guilty verdict is obvious, the legal system cannot be abandoned and a proper trial with all proper rights still given, as until the trial is over the defendant has to be treated like an innocent.

Seriously look up presumption of innocence dude, it's kinda important in the legal system

I understand the legal system....seriously. please review the part where I said "military tribunal...."

Ty for your comment though misdirected

[Phatscotty]

Never heard of human rights. That makes a lot of sense.

It's all clear to me now.

Say it with me now:

"Methinks it is like a weasel."

we are talking about a war situation. you are taking the position that when 1 soldier approaches another soldier from the opposing country, it is illegal to shoot the enemy.... cuz of human rights? I guess if you don't think USA is at war, then that might make sense. is or isn't the USA under attack from al-qada?

[Iliad]

Wow, I expected the usual from the usual. But I was coming along the lines of, here in America, if you commit a felony, you lose certain rights. If you go to prison, you lose your second amendment rights, and also the right to vote. (everybody pretty much understands and agrees with this)

This man tried to blow up innocent people on an airplane in an act of terrorism. This man is not an American citizen. He still gets rights though? I think he should have an open and shut military tribunal and put to death.

But at this point he has not being convicted of committing a felony, merely accused of it. The fact that the trial will be easy for the prosecution is irrelevant. He has only being accused of the crime right now, and there's a little thing called presumption of innocence. Also there's the Declaration of Human rights. People get rights not only because they are citizens but because they are people. Anyway yt doesn't matter if the guilty or not guilty verdict is obvious, the legal system cannot be abandoned and a proper trial with all proper rights still given, as until the trial is over the defendant has to be treated like an innocent.

Seriously look up presumption of innocence dude, it's kinda important in the legal system

I understand the legal system....seriously. please review the part where I said "military tribunal...."

Ty for your comment though misdirected

Hardly if you want to consider this man treated as having proven guilty before the trial even starts and want him to strip him of his rights to defend himself properly at said trial.

I don't care if it's a military tribunal or not, it has to be a fair trial and you cannot get that by stripping away his rights. This man has to be treated like an innocent. And don't try to steal those rights with any loophole 'illegal combatant' or whatever it was bullshit.

[Woodruff]

Wow, I expected the usual from the usual. But I was coming along the lines of, here in America, if you commit a felony, you lose certain rights.

Which I absolutely agree with. Yet, he has not yet been convicted of having committed a felony. I know it may sound like splitting hairs, but it IS an important distinction.

[Phatscotty]

Wow, I expected the usual from the usual. But I was coming along the lines of, here in America, if you commit a felony, you lose certain rights. If you go to prison, you lose your second amendment rights, and also the right to vote. (everybody pretty much understands and agrees with this)

This man tried to blow up innocent people on an airplane in an act of terrorism. This man is not an American citizen. He still gets rights though? I think he should have an open and shut military tribunal and put to death.

But at this point he has not being convicted of committing a felony, merely accused of it. The fact that the trial will be easy for the prosecution is irrelevant. He has only being accused of the crime right now, and there's a little thing called presumption of innocence. Also there's the Declaration of Human rights. People get rights not only because they are citizens but because they are people. Anyway yt doesn't matter if the guilty or not guilty verdict is obvious, the legal system cannot be abandoned and a proper trial with all proper rights still given, as until the trial is over the defendant has to be treated like an innocent.

Seriously look up presumption of innocence dude, it's kinda important in the legal system

I understand the legal system....seriously. please review the part where I said "military tribunal...."

Ty for your comment though misdirected

Hardly if you want to consider this man treated as having proven guilty before the trial even starts and want him to strip him of his rights to defend himself properly at said trial.

I don't care if it's a military tribunal or not, it has to be a fair trial and you cannot get that by stripping away his rights. This man has to be treated like an innocent. And don't try to steal those rights with any loophole 'illegal combatant' or whatever it was bullshit.

obviously, you are missing the point completely. I am saying it's a huge f'ing mistake to put this man through the legal system. Try him and fry him, sure, but get the emergency information to try to stop the next possible terror attack.

[Woodruff]

Wow, I expected the usual from the usual. But I was coming along the lines of, here in America, if you commit a felony, you lose certain rights. If you go to prison, you lose your second amendment rights, and also the right to vote. (everybody pretty much understands and agrees with this)

This man tried to blow up innocent people on an airplane in an act of terrorism. This man is not an American citizen. He still gets rights though? I think he should have an open and shut military tribunal and put to death.

But at this point he has not being convicted of committing a felony, merely accused of it. The fact that the trial will be easy for the prosecution is irrelevant. He has only being accused of the crime right now, and there's a little thing called presumption of innocence. Also there's the Declaration of Human rights. People get rights not only because they are citizens but because they are people. Anyway yt doesn't matter if the guilty or not guilty verdict is obvious, the legal system cannot be abandoned and a proper trial with all proper rights still given, as until the trial is over the defendant has to be treated like an innocent.

Seriously look up presumption of innocence dude, it's kinda important in the legal system

I understand the legal system....seriously. please review the part where I said "military tribunal...."

Ty for your comment though misdirected

Hardly if you want to consider this man treated as having proven guilty before the trial even starts and want him to strip him of his rights to defend himself properly at said trial.

I don't care if it's a military tribunal or not, it has to be a fair trial and you cannot get that by stripping away his rights. This man has to be treated like an innocent. And don't try to steal those rights with any loophole 'illegal combatant' or whatever it was bullshit.

obviously, you are missing the point completely. I am saying it's a huge f'ing mistake to put this man through the legal system.

I would have to disagree with you completely on that. He's clearly guilty, and he's clearly going to be found guilty. It's just too easy. So if we don't follow the proper procedures when it's an easy case (thus legitimizing his guilty verdict to most of the free world), why would anyone trust a guilty verdict with a difficult case (when we might be suspected of having tainted things or not followed procedure)? It can ONLY work in our favor to run him through the legal system.

[Phatscotty]

Wow, I expected the usual from the usual. But I was coming along the lines of, here in America, if you commit a felony, you lose certain rights. If you go to prison, you lose your second amendment rights, and also the right to vote. (everybody pretty much understands and agrees with this)

This man tried to blow up innocent people on an airplane in an act of terrorism. This man is not an American citizen. He still gets rights though? I think he should have an open and shut military tribunal and put to death.

But at this point he has not being convicted of committing a felony, merely accused of it. The fact that the trial will be easy for the prosecution is irrelevant. He has only being accused of the crime right now, and there's a little thing called presumption of innocence. Also there's the Declaration of Human rights. People get rights not only because they are citizens but because they are people. Anyway yt doesn't matter if the guilty or not guilty verdict is obvious, the legal system cannot be abandoned and a proper trial with all proper rights still given, as until the trial is over the defendant has to be treated like an innocent.

Seriously look up presumption of innocence dude, it's kinda important in the legal system

I understand the legal system....seriously. please review the part where I said "military tribunal...."

Ty for your comment though misdirected

I would have to disagree with you completely on that. He's clearly guilty, and he's clearly going to be found guilty. It's just too easy. So if we don't follow the proper procedures when it's an easy case (thus legitimizing his guilty verdict to most of the free world), why would anyone trust a guilty verdict with a difficult case (when we might be suspected of having tainted things or not followed procedure)? It can ONLY work in our favor to run him through the legal system.

I hear you. IMO, military tribunal. guilty by military tribunal. Obama administration, huge mistake here. time will tell.

[Iliad]

Never heard of human rights. That makes a lot of sense.

It's all clear to me now.

Say it with me now:

"Methinks it is like a weasel."

we are talking about a war situation. you are taking the position that when 1 soldier approaches another soldier from the opposing country, it is illegal to shoot the enemy.... cuz of human rights? I guess if you don't think USA is at war, then that might make sense. is or isn't the USA under attack from al-qada?

Oh I see, you're at war with an organisation. Not just fighting them, at war.

Under your proposal anyone who commits a crime because he is a part of some radical organisation, nationalist, religious, racist, no anyone accused of committing a crime blamed on a radical organisation is to be denied presumption of innocence, due process and a chance to defend himself properly. And you see nothing wrong with this?

[Phatscotty]

Never heard of human rights. That makes a lot of sense.

It's all clear to me now.

Say it with me now:

"Methinks it is like a weasel."

we are talking about a war situation. you are taking the position that when 1 soldier approaches another soldier from the opposing country, it is illegal to shoot the enemy.... cuz of human rights? I guess if you don't think USA is at war, then that might make sense. is or isn't the USA under attack from al-qada?

Oh I see, you're at war with an organisation. Not just fighting them, at war.

Under your proposal anyone who commits a crime because he is a part of some radical organisation, nationalist, religious, racist, no anyone accused of committing a crime blamed on a radical organisation is to be denied presumption of innocence, due process and a chance to defend himself properly. And you see nothing wrong with this?

military tribunal is the way to go. yes he is going thru the criminal system. that is a mistake IMO. yes he is presumed innocent now. mistake IMO. military tribunal. under the circumstances, with so many witnesses, with such clear cut red-handedness, military tribunal is easy. Fucker should be in guantanmo bay right now.

military tribunal

[Iliad]

Never heard of human rights. That makes a lot of sense.

It's all clear to me now.

Say it with me now:

"Methinks it is like a weasel."

we are talking about a war situation. you are taking the position that when 1 soldier approaches another soldier from the opposing country, it is illegal to shoot the enemy.... cuz of human rights? I guess if you don't think USA is at war, then that might make sense. is or isn't the USA under attack from al-qada?

Oh I see, you're at war with an organisation. Not just fighting them, at war.

Under your proposal anyone who commits a crime because he is a part of some radical organisation, nationalist, religious, racist, no anyone accused of committing a crime blamed on a radical organisation is to be denied presumption of innocence, due process and a chance to defend himself properly. And you see nothing wrong with this?

military tribunal is the way to go. yes he is going thru the criminal system. that is a mistake IMO. yes he is presumed innocent now. mistake IMO. military tribunal. under the circumstances, with so many witnesses, with such clear cut red-handedness, military tribunal is easy. Fucker should be in guantanmo bay right now.

military tribunal

I don't think you understand the legal system at all, Scotty. Here you are loking at the base facts at the case and wondering why we should even bother with a proper trial. You know why Scotty? Cause precedents are really fucking important in law. And think about the precedent you want to create here because the case is too 'easy' and a trial seems a worthless hassle to you.
I already tried to show you the repercussions of that precedent. Not to mention to the global image of America, the protector of freedom and human rights. You're fighting against radical organisations. You're not the only country in the world to be fighting some. Al Qaeda won't be the last one. Now think about that when you consider the precedent you're trying to create and what you're broadcasting is alright for the government to do.

[Neoteny]

Never heard of human rights. That makes a lot of sense.

It's all clear to me now.

Say it with me now:

"Methinks it is like a weasel."

we are talking about a war situation. you are taking the position that when 1 soldier approaches another soldier from the opposing country, it is illegal to shoot the enemy.... cuz of human rights? I guess if you don't think USA is at war, then that might make sense. is or isn't the USA under attack from al-qada?

Wat. He was not engaged in warfare. He was engaged in terrorism, regardless of how you want to title it ("war on terror" is a bit silly on its own; we're in a "war on drugs" too. Should all pot smokers be tried in a military tribunal?). Sure we are in a war against al-Qaeda, but it's hard to justify putting him through a tribunal (which, I think you are only pulling for because you think he has a better chance of being put to death, you bloodthirsty animal). His ties with al-Qaeda haven't been (expressly) verified yet (since he hasn't been on trial). He was a civilian attempting to attack civilians. He was apprehended by the FBI (not the military; one of whose express intents are the protection of civil rights). The strange thing is that even military tribunals try to give due process and all those other "rights" that you don't really care about.

[Koesen]

Since when is giving someone a lawyer and a trial 'extreme'?

What's the problem here? There are almost 300 witnesses who all agree on what happened, why it happened, how it happened and who tried to make it happen. The guy is going to get 300 consecutive life sentences and will spend the next 60 years as the shower toy of the Arian Brotherhood.

Trials and lawyers are the very thing that the US apart from something like al-Qaeda. Why throw that away and stoop to their level? Is there anyone here who seriously believes this guy will manage to use the legal system to talk his way out of things?

What some people fail to understand is that trials and lawyers aren't about being nice to criminals. They're about being nice to you. Deny them to another and one day they will be denied to you. It's your freedom they protect.

[hecter]

Scotty, you sound dumber than usual... Are you drunk?

[Nobunaga]

... Incredible, this legalist approach to war. You guys (lawyers) are among the list of reasons we're going to lose at least a few thousand more citizens to these animals before it's through.

... The man is the member of an organization at war with the United States. He attempted to kill as many as he could by destroying an airplane, a good soldier (for his side).

... Slap on the chains and toss him in a deep, dark hole.

... And this guy (as a side note) rather dispels the myth of poverty as a cause for radicalization, eh.

...

[demonfork]

Just when I think that you couldn't possibly be a bigger idiot...

How could it possibly be anything other than allowing him HIS RIGHTS?

[Phatscotty]

Never heard of human rights. That makes a lot of sense.

It's all clear to me now.

Say it with me now:

"Methinks it is like a weasel."

we are talking about a war situation. you are taking the position that when 1 soldier approaches another soldier from the opposing country, it is illegal to shoot the enemy.... cuz of human rights? I guess if you don't think USA is at war, then that might make sense. is or isn't the USA under attack from al-qada?

Wat. He was not engaged in warfare. He was engaged in terrorism, regardless of how you want to title it ("war on terror" is a bit silly on its own; we're in a "war on drugs" too. Should all pot smokers be tried in a military tribunal?). Sure we are in a war against al-Qaeda, but it's hard to justify putting him through a tribunal (which, I think you are only pulling for because you think he has a better chance of being put to death, you bloodthirsty animal). His ties with al-Qaeda haven't been (expressly) verified yet (since he hasn't been on trial). He was a civilian attempting to attack civilians. He was apprehended by the FBI (not the military; one of whose express intents are the protection of civil rights). The strange thing is that even military tribunals try to give due process and all those other "rights" that you don't really care about.

war on drugs and war on potheads is retarded to compare to massacring innocents......