Terrorists Should Be Treated As Enemy Combatants

Democracy as defined by Webster is: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

It has been pointed out in leaked information and government sources that Clinton and the DNC squeezed out Sanders, and Trump was elected with the help of Russia.

And you think that also applies to the right to a fair trial. I dont think I have ever seen anything quite like that in my day on social media. Good job. Unfortunately you really do believe your own sticky putty of words in that. Let me break it to you gently - weekend warriors do not get to speak for the justice system.

I thought I'd been eminently clear; investigation and due process in a court of law is the means by which we ascertain the guilt of suspected criminals and mete out justice. You're suggesting we cede this authority to the military and the media. My point is that is a disasterous precedent to set.

Clear to whom? One of the purposes of a trial is to test and demonstrate the veritability of claims made against the defendent's good standing in society. That you want to strip this procedure away, one of the means by which we check the government's power, suggests to me that you want to reserve the right to kill suspected terrorists behind closed doors if it satisfies the military's or media's consensus of what constitutes "obvious guilt". That's absolutely unacceptable.

If you learned anything from studying propaganda, you should have learned that consensus of belief only affects the projected liklihood of a given statement being true, not the actual liklihood of a given statement being true. Argumentum Ad Populum would be rightly shot down in court by any remotely competant attorney because it is a plainly fallacious argument.

Sadly, Amercians are generally thick individuals (in more ways than one) and find it easier to go with the flow than seek the truth by questioning what the corporate mass media bombs them with from every direction. Because THEY KNOW. You hear the same thing a hundred times and you're liable to believe it. The pragmatic move in this case is to simply accept truth at face value: a series of interdependent truisms wrapped up in plausible packaging with a bow on top for emphasis. Nevermind why it is that you're receiving a Christmas present on the first Thursday of May, it's a present and the sort of high that a surprise gift ellicits, building your expectation and fueling your imagination, is the same which fuels the torches carried by mob justice.

"It's right because all the different media organizations agreed that it's right", not that it conforms any developed method of ascertaining truth.

You keep treating guilt as if it's a given and prescribing we, on that basis, legislate away the means by which we determine that guilt in the first place. You've said earlier in this thread that failure to interrogate people by adhering to due process could squander time sensitive information. I say again: Your haste will get innocent people killed.

Consensus is not democracy, and the sooner people realize that the sooner otherwise reasonable people will stop defending a fallacy.

I mostly agree with the Mofos in the thread who are saying this man should be tried in our federal court. Question though, that I am not sure I completely know how I would answer myself. If we did have an official declaration of war on ISIS, would you feel the same way or would you then believe he should be tried in a military court and be treated as a POW?

__________________
Letterboxd

I presume you approve of rendition?

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

It’s exhausting being you, I would imagine.

Your seem to be trying to have it both ways which is impossible on this issue. Either that or you just want to argue irrelevant of how ridiculously contradictory your statements are. Hope its not that because that would just be sad.

Why it’s a terrible idea? Because they haven’t been tried and found guilty by a jury of their peers and allowing the state to kill whenever they decide doing so is “best for society” WITHOUT first allowing the accused to have their constitutionally mandated right to trial is the sheer definition of totalitarianism. And it means they can kill you or me or our loved ones or anyone they choose for no cause whatsoever if they just say theres cause. Terrible idea.

No. You cant. If you are giving the state full authority to kill people at will YOU HAVE A POLICE STATE. My only justification for killing a person is if they are deemed to be a current and immediate threat to members of the public at that time because, for example, they have a weapon they may use on innocent civilians. Once they are incapacitated and taken into custody they are no longer an immediate threat and should be accorded their constitutional right to representation.

Welcome to America where we have a Constitution that gives us the right to life and liberty.

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

So unless your argument is that the Constitution is wrong and should be thrown out then your ‘philosophy’ about killing people whenever you say so is irrelevant. And if that is your argument then once again welcome to the Police State.


So are you advocating killing anyone that commits a crime so that you don’t have to be burdened with funding their existence in prison? Or not jailing them? Or what? And no this doesn’t explain how you can hold both opinions at the same time.

So you think this guy ran over people so he could earn the “reward” of eating meals in jail for the rest of his life? Or you think allowing him to eat in prison will make him believe he is being rewarded for what he did? I think you are just attempting to wrap yourself in knots to basically say that it bothers you that your tax money in some way goes to the feeding and housing of people who have committed crimes. Its an understandable resentment to have certainly but where do you draw the line exactly on who is worthy of your “hard earned” taxes? Bank robbery? Rape? 2nd degree murder?

Its my way of saying this topic isn’t a discussion of capital punishment. Simple as that. As already noted, Im happy to engage in one if you want to start a separate thread on it.

Wait I have to pre-check my points with you from the beginning before I get into a discussion? Nice dodge. And how is that statement a straw man statement exactly? It’s a relevant truth. Criminals (especially terrorists) could have knowledge or connections with others that could prove helpful to investigators in dealing with pending or future terrorist incidents. Why is that such a strange thing to say exactly? And killing them because they are a dirty dog who clearly killed people would severely limit our ability to obtain any such information. Is that not true?

If that were what I was saying then I wouldn’t be in favor of using necessary lethal force against them during the incident now would I? So stop trying to twist my words and avoid the point. It seems to be your modus operandi. Not wanting to create a situation that leads to more attacks is justification not to kill them. Among other things Ive also mentioned.

So your argument is that anyone who has been inspired to join a terrorist group and commit terrorist acts would have done it without inspiration anyway? Really?

Ah here we have some progress finally! And what exactly is your proposal to accomplish this and still be Constitutionally sound? How do you propose to allow the authority the right to kill nasty people as they see fit, quickly and without expense, and still have it work within the specific confines of our constitutional democracy?

Its my tax money too remember not just yours. And I am perfectly fine with my government using it to keep dangerous people confined in a place where they cant run over bikers with trucks ever again. Money well spent in my opinion. If you don’t approve, you can always seek out a country where they don’t waste your precious money on things like housing prisoners. My guess is that in any place that either doesn’t house their prisoners or just shoots them on site, how they spend your tax money is going to be the LEAST of your worries. But by all means look into it.

What laundry list? You mentioned over and over how the fact that they are using your precious money to house prisoners is a big issue for you. I have simply responded with what actually is the cost of dealing with criminals in our current system and the even higher cost of allowing the state to take away lives of its citizens in a way that ignores our Constitutional rights.

Oh is it vegan then? Well either way.

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

First gem from you, so far!

I take it you are not American.
Why do you even keep talking about our democracy?
I never said that consensus implies democracy.
For the purposes of this discussion, democracy refers to the rule of the majority through freedom of choice.
Views such as yours just further enforce my wish for the Monroe Doctrine.

God forbid a non-American should chime in here. And he could be American, for all you know.

What, finished with needlepoint all ready?

He's american. What does that have to do with the price of fish in china? You're not American.

Stirchley lives in the U.S.

Don't know about citizenship status though.

__________________

Just to be clear.
I started this thread primarily for Americans living in America, because of a recent event that occurred on American soil.
Foreigners are entitled to their opinion but are irrelevant as to what they can do about our problem.
You have enough problems of your own, but when you start chiming in on how we should handle our business, I need to point out it's none of your business until of course it becomes specifically yours.
I find it odd that some people fly their national flag in their avatars, but make statements and questions contrary to their government's position.
I'm a patriot and my party happens to be in power here. My opinions do not negate theirs. You may not like it and you may differ with it, but for now, it is what it is, and until the next elections you can cry all you want but there is nothing you can do about it.
It's high time for democrats and liberals to accept that fact and stop trying to undermine this presidency.

Judging by her avatar, it's no different than some individuals of Mexican heritage flying Mexican flags at out national sports events, such as boxing events that include Mexican fighters ( what makes it even worse is that they are American citizens )
America first, love it or leave it.

Man, wait until I tell you about this guy who spent lots of his time trying to undermine the last President! He decided to run for public office shortly afterwards, as I recall.

"Judging by her avatar," you're coming to a judgment you cannot possibly come to simply by looking at an avatar.

Try actually explaining what you mean by this. Does it mean people should not criticize the government? If not, then what does it mean?

I'm an American, and I find this all bullocks. Of course my opinion of what constitutes bullocks will shift over the course of this thread's life as other posters post posts pointing to considerations that I have not considered. I will then declare i, where i=bullocks ++i for each new iteration or inclusion of other ideas. Because I am shifty like that. And I like to make sure my foundation of any argument is fluid and mobile.



*EDIT*
yeah. I'm sure I wrote that terribly wrong. if you get it, then you got it. that's good enough for me.

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

That's a strange comment coming from a conservative.
If I am not mistaken, it is precisely the attitude of the former president that brought about events leading to this thread.
You may not like Trump ( and I don't support every thing he says ) but you can not deny that he has brought us to a better economic place and is in the process of bringing us to a better political one as well.
The threats are only getting bigger and some one has to put a stop to them.
I'm sure you recognize how close we are to a nuclear holocaust.

Criticizing the government does not mean that one is not patriotic. Flying a foreign flag on American soil, does.