Seat 19A

[phil]

Also, the truly poor state of our intelligence on the matter is mind-boggling. For example: we think that someone named Mohammed in the middle east may be a terrorist. Gee......that's only about 400 million people.

What happened after 9/11 was that the administration could not believe that a group of people who had been living in huts in Afghanistan could carry out the most damaging attack ever on the US. We're STILL making the same errors. I see an enormous amount of money is going into conventional warfare, fighting a foe we could understand: Iraq. As Cheney put it: there were a lot of targets in Iraq. We spend billions on satellite systems and pricey high end tech items, but relatively little was spent on providing a secure means of travel.

Now it's still the same answer. A small group of individuals can still probably succeed using low tech/high concept operations, just like 9/11. Nothing forgotten, nothing learned. The groups in question are probably even more motivated to strike at the US. No one has looked at why A-Q was trying to attack us.

After 9/11, one million people rallied in sympathy in Tehran. That was all squandered after we named them as the axis of evil and invaded Iraq. It's as if we had wanted to alienate people around the world.

 

[nnuut]

Lawmaker wants military trial for alleged airline bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

The leading Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee says the Nigerian man accused of attacking an airliner as it approached Detroit should be tried by a military tribunal rather than a civilian court.

Rep. Peter King of New York said Tuesday it will be more difficult for authorities to get useful information from the suspect if he is given the legal rights afforded to defendants in civilian courts, including the right to a lawyer.
The suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, has been charged in federal court with trying to detonate the device as the plane approached Detroit last Friday. The device burst into flames instead, according to authorities, and he was subdued by passengers. http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=96709&catid=288

Question: What is the difference between this TERRORIST and the ones being transferred from Guantanamo, the guys that DESTROYED the TWIN Towers and Tower #7 killing over 3000 Americans? It's a travesty of justice giving these murderers the rights reserved for American Citizens!!:nuts:

 

[Silverbird]

He's NOT a soldier. No rights as an "enemy combatant". Not military, no military trial. That guy probably only knows "in theory" how to wield a weapon; he doesn't deserve the right to a military trial.

 

[nnuut]

He's NOT a soldier. No rights as an "enemy combatant". Not military, no military trial. That guy probably only knows "in theory" how to wield a weapon; he doesn't deserve a military trial.

Here is the statement delineating what is planned for him.
Lawmaker wants military trial for alleged airline bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
There is no difference between him and the Guantanamo group, none are considered military or enemy combatants so they are getting a Civil Trial. They ALL should get a Military Trial as far as I'm concerned, why is it called tThe WAR on Terrorism against the Holy War. They have declared WAR against US!!!

And WHY do the Guantanamo transferees deserve a Civil Trial?

 

[Silverbird]

They aren't soldiers either, they are civilians accused of crimes. They represent and defend no recognised Government or Country, and will NOT be released when the batles are over - enemy combatants would be released. I'd be worried if they were subject to military law, they could just argue that they are soldiers - if they weren't why put them before in a court meant for the military?

As for charging them with something. I think conspiring to commit mass murder, on the other hand, could, if handled properly would fall under our local Mob laws....

 

[phil]

Exactly. Why are we making criminals into soldiers, and trying to make soldiers into criminals? We respect soldiers, even when they're fighting against us. And they are subject to the law of warfare. These are criminals, not soldiers. Sometimes it's as if I'm hitting my head against the wall, trying to show the difference between the two.

 

[Warrenlm]

Does anyone remember why we stopped development of the neutron bomb?

 

[nnuut]

Exactly. Why are we making criminals into soldiers, and trying to make soldiers into criminals? We respect soldiers, even when they're fighting against us. And they are subject to the law of warfare. These are criminals, not soldiers. Sometimes it's as if I'm hitting my head against the wall, trying to show the difference between the two.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT1GD5mw3uY

 

[nnuut]

Does anyone remember why we stopped development of the neutron bomb?

Yep, to stimulate the construction sector!

 

[CountryBoy]

Yep, to stimulate the construction sector!

:laugh: Good one nnuut

 

[Show-me]

He's NOT a soldier. No rights as an "enemy combatant". Not military, no military trial. That guy probably only knows "in theory" how to wield a weapon; he doesn't deserve the right to a military trial.

I have to disagree, you do not need to know how to wield a firearm to be a weapon. Even our own militia during the Revolution were not "soldier" but were very effective. I know a bunch of redneck coon asses that could do some real damage on a battlefield with no training.

Saddam and Hitler pulled old men and kids off the streets to hold a weapon on a line. They were soldiers.

He was a soldier and at the very least a enemy of the citizens that our Soldiers defend.

Had he done the same act on a battlefield he would still be a soldier of the enemy.

In my world he would already be dead. Smoking underwear and all.

On another note, not very funny that it is being reported that two of the terrorist/soldiers/enemy combatants released from GITMO were in on the planning. Brilliant to let them go.

 

[Show-me]

Exactly. Why are we making criminals into soldiers, and trying to make soldiers into criminals? We respect soldiers, even when they're fighting against us. And they are subject to the law of warfare. These are criminals, not soldiers. Sometimes it's as if I'm hitting my head against the wall, trying to show the difference between the two.

Yep, they recognize you as the weak spot in our armor and they will exploit it every time. I bet we get to provide him with the best lawyer taxpayer money can buy. More money and resources down your sanctimonious black hole. Keep pandering them, they are all counting on you and your kind!

 

[Silverbird]

My argument is he receives too many rights under military law, he'd simply be a soldier. I know there are many weapons but if a weapon a soldier makes, we have lots of soldiers in our prisons today (who would never qualify for the armed forces in any country except as a conscript). Now, Saddam Hussain was a different matter - we handed him over to his sucessors, we did not try his case.

Last I checked he wants a court appointed lawyer - that's hardly the best taxpayer money can buy - the best (or at least the highest expense) are the lawyers who work in federal service interpreting law for the govenment. Court appointed lawyers are notoriously overworked and underpaid.

If he gets the best lawyer, it'll be with the help of daddy or grampa; better them paying for it than me - but it appears daddy and gramps are kinda mad at him at the moment.

 

[Show-me]

I see your point but the military will be swift and efficient. They will usually not allow a media circus for the followers to feed upon.

As far as not being a Country, they are a organized group of trained persons. Each trained to carry out a task like the kamikaze of WWII. Granted they are not as structured as a industrialized fighting force but they are structured, funded, trained, and focused on their enemy and will do anything to inflict casualties. No prisoners for them unless they can shoot a video of them cutting off a head to rally their troops and demoralize their enemies.

See them for what they are! This IS combat, war and they are the enemy whether you call the soldiers or combatants or criminals. They are the enemy and they would not hesitate to kill you and your family.

 

[phil]

We don't treat them as soldiers, but as criminals.

Fortunately, we do recognize international law. People from the Nigerian embassy will be given access to him. We're not currently at war with Nigeria. Is that on the agenda? In the end, we have to also rely on foreign countries to assist us in matters relating to air travel. Whether you think that's right or not. International air travel is....international. It's not from Kentucky to Ohio, no matter what you may think.

Yep, they recognize you as the weak spot in our armor and they will exploit it every time. I bet we get to provide him with the best lawyer taxpayer money can buy. More money and resources down your sanctimonious black hole. Keep pandering them, they are all counting on you and your kind!

 

[Silverbird]

I wish they were an army and represented a country, we could declare war on it, and capture it, or bomb it into little pieces! They represent no land in existance, they just run away to somewhere else. If they were an army at war representing a country they would be subject to combat all the time, and have land to defend - and we could make them defend it.

The Kamikaze of WWII were trying to kill us so we wouldn't take Japan - but we defeated them and took over their country, yes? Taking over Yemen, or Nigeria unfortunately isn't going to stop the terrorists, and we'd be stuck defending another country. Plus, when we captured Kamikaze's we didn't execute them because they were enemy combatants - in the case of the terrorists they deserve no such rights.

 

[Show-me]

I'll give you that one, diplomacy is not my strong suit. I would still use a military trial if I had any evidence they were a part of any Muslim extremist group. Since he is a Nigerian and we are not a war, why would he attack us and what was his gain if not for the organization he has allegiance with. This is not a criminal act for personal gain, but a suicide mission by a militant radical bent on inflicting casualties.

Hardly criminal, more like a military operation.

We don't treat them as soldiers, but as criminals.

Fortunately, we do recognize international law. People from the Nigerian embassy will be given access to him. We're not currently at war with Nigeria. Is that on the agenda? In the end, we have to also rely on foreign countries to assist us matters relating to air travel. Whether you think that's right or not. International air travel is....international. It's not from Kentucky to Ohio, no matter what you may think.

 

[phil]

Now, we have human error. The President has to hold people accountable for letting him on the plane. Stand by for some pain.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/29/airline.terror.obama/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

 

[Show-me]

I wish they were an army and represented a country, we could declare war on it, and capture it, or bomb it into little pieces! They represent no land in existance, they just run away to somewhere else. If they were an army at war representing a country they would be subject to combat all the time, and have land to defend - and we could make them defend it.

The Kamikaze of WWII were trying to kill us so we wouldn't take Japan - but we defeated them and took over their country, yes? Taking over Yemen, or Nigeria unfortunately isn't going to stop the terrorists, and we'd be stuck defending another country. Plus, when we captured Kamikaze's we didn't execute them because they were enemy combatants - in the case of the terrorists they have no such rights.

Time are changing a organization of militants can exploit the fact that they can run from country to country and we can not follow without negotiating with that country. ie Pakistan.

A organization of militants can rule a region using terror and military arms and not be recognized as a "county" that we can bomb the crap out off. They have figured out how to "game the international system" and are doing it well.

I'm not advocating taking over Yemen or Nigeria. I am advocating sending the individuals to hell via a military trial as a enemy soldiers belonging to a militant organization recognized by the international community that spans many countries and answers to none of those countries governments for their plans or actions.

Whether in defense or as a offense, suicide missions are military objectives.

Fort Hood shows that no matter what country you claim your loyalty are to a different cause or organization. That bastard counseled with militant sympathizers as to whether it was OK to do it. He should be tried as a traitor, but the liberal media is sitting on this story big time. Why?

traitor [ˈtreɪtə]
n a person who is guilty of treason or treachery, in betraying friends, country, a cause or trust, etc.

 

[Show-me]

Now, we have human error. The President has to hold people accountable for letting him on the plane. Stand by for some pain.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/29/airline.terror.obama/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Should there not be any pain?