WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov-24-09 05:36 PM
Original message
If you try the terrorists as if they committed an act of war...
Doesn't that elevate them to quasi statehood status?
My whole thinking about this is to bring them down to what they really are; rogue criminals.
And if, I believe they are, criminals, try them as criminals.
We tried the first World Trade Center as criminals, we tried the sniper as a criminal and we tried McVie et al as criminals.
Why does the Right wish to elevate these international thugs into something much more than they really are?
Oh, that's right, they have been stoking that fire since 9/12...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7081768Maybe I'm crazy but bringing down the entire world trade center and killing almost 3000 innocent civilians sounds like an act of war to me.
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov-24-09 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Agreed.
The whole thing should have been handled as a criminal matter, not a war.
I know why the Bushies got that wrong.
I don't know why America followed.
We must be stupid.
Yeah that worked really well after the WTC bombing of 93 oh wait they came back and did it right in 2001.
aint_no_life_nowhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov-24-09 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. The five alleged terrorists will be tried under criminal law, won't they?
I assumed that Holder was saying this, that they would seek the death penalty under criminal statutues. They will be tried in civilian courts, not the military commissions in Guantanamo that wanted them to be considered enemy combatants.
I'm not sure if you're saying that they won't be, or that you don't think the Republicans and their military commissions behind closed doors make sense. Personally, I want public trials where the world can see they get their day in court and get to present their best defense. I don't like the way they have already been tried and convicted in the public mind. I assume only the clearest and strongest cases will be brought to trial, but weren't some of the Guantanamo detainees sold to the CIA for a bounty by Afghan warlords, making their culpability suspect? I would rather see one or more go free than to have the slightest doubt about their innocence or guilt in closed door proceedings as the Republicans want.
So you would rather they go free and regroup and hit us again. Sadly you may get your wish.
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov-24-09 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I said pretty clearly to treat and try them as criminals...
It's the right that wanted to treat them as war criminals.
The question that begs to be asked but never was or is is can a state of war really exist between a rogue faction in a failed state and a nation state? If not, then they are criminals and should be treated as such.
Oh don't worry soon they too can sue if the jail gives them chunky instead of creamy peanut butter.
I'm just amazed at the stupidity at DUmmyland. I know they have been at it for 8 years but, I still am amazed.