Will you be happy with Osama Bin Laden having the same access to lawyers as you and I? Or do you think that the military tribunals should be established to judge and sentence these killers?
2006-09-07 07:47:09 · 19 answers · asked by therandman 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
JIM - time to get new plays man!
This is your summary for just about every conservative question or answer:
1. You call them a LIAR
2. You engage in Personal Attacks.
It seems to me and alot of other YA"ers that you are the one that needs to grow up.
I still see you haven't gotten any help with your Napoleon Complex.
2006-09-07 08:13:48 · update #1
JIM - Your still 4% points behind me in being choosen for best answers - go figure my man! Obviuosly I have smarter answers than you - little man!
2006-09-07 08:33:01 · update #2
We are at WAR and the ENEMY should not be afforded the rights of a US citizen. They want to kill us and destroy our way of life. They do not negotiate, and they WANT to die a martyr. You do not give these type of individuals the courtesy you would afford a rational human being. They torture and behead Americans.
I vote for military tribunals.
2006-09-07 09:07:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, He is a self proclaimed enemy of AMERICA, He is responsible for murdering over 3000 AMERICANS. He started the war. He is not an American therefore he has no AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS. Military Tribunals are the way to go as they always have in the past! Hopefully he will be tried in a tall building and it gets so hot in there he jumps out of the window on his way to DEATH! Actually we can start the fire with his turbine while its on his head! I know, I'm terrible, War is War and its kill or be killed. Do you people actually believe we should have those terrorist in Our courts? We are in a war not in Los Angles having a riot! How MANY American SOLDIERS were given the benefit of court. If I remember correctly, we just had some soldiers killed and sliced open and stuffed with bombs. You think those people deserve court? Your not watching a movie,This is the real deal and they want us ALL dead and they hate you liberals more then us conservatives for what you stand for! Wake UP!
2006-09-07 07:58:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I had no idea that was the "way" of the dems. Would you mind sending me a Email address of one of those dems so I can discover what is wrong with him?
As for civil liberties Yeah Sure. You must have been in the legal profession too long. Most Americans don't think that way But your right there is nothing a lawyer likes more than tying a case up in court.
It's called billable hours.
Go big Red Go
2006-09-07 08:28:02 · answer #3 · answered by 43 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think that since the President has declared a war, then we should abide by the Geneva Convention that has worked since 1864, because if the United States does not,, then our American soldiers are subject to the barbaric treatment of al Qaeda and other terrorists organizations all over the world. America is not a county that accepts terrorism tactics, the people will never go backwards, despite what George W. Bush has said; he is no longer credible anyway, not with the majority of the US citizens, and not with the world community. Bush removed the US from the World Court because he wants to be judge, jury and executioner,,, that's the definition of a Fascist Dictator.....
2006-09-07 08:02:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
This sort of asusmes that the only terrorists in the world are Muslim. Was Timothy McViegh a Muslim? How about Terry Nichols, Eric Robert Rudolph, Donald DeFreeze, or Theodore Kaczynski? Or does your definition of terrorist only apply when someone smashes a plane into a building? All of these American men were, by definition, terrorists, and they were afforded their civil rights.... Or is it different when it's just plain old homegrown nutjobs killing Americans? This has nothing to do with Dems or Repubs, as far as I can see.
2006-09-07 07:57:57 · answer #5 · answered by ReeRee 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
in basic terms yet another party of liberal hypocrisy. at the same time as W did it, it became incorrect. at the same time as the BO does it. look any incorrect way. "we do not want no rights. We were given masser Obami contained in the large white homestead lookin afta us.!" “Then there is the even extra significant incontrovertible truth that what were once seen as debatable properly-wing, Bush/Cheney Terrorism regulations were switched over, below Obama, into bipartisan consensus. while the large majority of Democrats spent the perfect 8 years claiming to vehemently oppose regulations which contain indefinite detention, militia commissions, and secrecy claims, they now actively protect them or (at maximum acceptable) stay meekly silent because it’s now their political party, quite than the GOP, that's to blame for them. by technique of embracing as his own lots of the very regulations he vowed to uproot, Obama has gutted the midsection of public competition to those regulations. Is it quite a wonder, then, that public opinion on those questions has worsened below Obama” — Glenn Greenwald, arguing that Obama has moved public opinion in help of civil-liberty violations
2016-11-06 20:17:35 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Looking back on the history of the Nuremberg/Tokyo trials, you can see that they were basically political shows and not real trials (in respect to the rule of law). I've served in the military, and the Uniformed Code of Military Justice is woefully inadequate to handle these kinds of trials. Although yes, in many regards it is more fair than the regular US court room, trying a terrorism suspect should be done in the public eye. Will they tie up their cases in appeal after appeal? Probably so, but in the end, it will show that we ARE more civilized than this group of men who have corrupted and twisted a beautiful religion to meet their own purpose
2006-09-07 08:59:28 · answer #7 · answered by esko1269 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You seem to forget that we are SUPPOSED to be a country that is based on the rule of law. That transcends parties-- it is part of our constitution-- due process.
How many people have we detained only to find out they were not terrorists? How about we detain you for 1 year w/out any charges?
If we catch him, then yes we should try him.
I'm sure OBL will never see a court room-- if we find him, he'll get his justice in the field just like Sadaams sons did.
2006-09-07 07:55:38 · answer #8 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
they took lead paint off the market and marine paint with lead in it is so expensive to buy . thanks for the heads up anyhow .BUT what i did not understand is that no one seems concerned about the privacy issue and that some day it will be you for buying rubbers and preventing child birth .MAYBE ! I am concerned for all Americans and drug deals though deplorable should enjoy the same rights as the rest of us or soon the police state will be knocking on your door asking if you have anything to hide .AND by the way may we come in .WE have information that you are having an affair and jeopardizing your state sponcered marriage .
2006-09-07 08:15:00 · answer #9 · answered by playtoofast 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Both Republicans and Democrats in the house are pushing a law on how and where to prosecute terrorists. They are going forward with the idea that they would want our troops handled fairly if captured by the enemy. What goes around comes around. How we treat and bring these people to justice will reflect on how our POWs are treated.
2006-09-07 08:05:32 · answer #10 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋