Let's impeach the president.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

That doesn't sound right, can you provide a link to support your statement.

Bill Clinton ignoring Bin Laden
This seemed to give a little of both sides. Its hard to find something without a slant either right or left.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Bill Clinton ignoring Bin Laden
This seemed to give a little of both sides. Its hard to find something without a slant either right or left.

Looking back, what was the expectations? That Bin Laden should have been arrested or killed even though he didn't commit any crimes against the US? There are a lot of characters in history like Bin Laden. If only we knew what they were going to become or do. After Bin Laden issued his decree of killing Americans he immediately became a target and the hunt began. That's how the world works, at least that's how it should work. You don't preemptively kill and imprison people because you think they might do something in the future.

If you have credible and substantiated evidence of the intent of an individual then by all means, issue arrest warrants and let the law, our law as well as international law, take its course. No indefinite detention. No secrete court rooms and back door trials. No tossing aside the constitution. Do it right, do it well, do it morally.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by saden1

Looking back, what was the expectations? That Bin Laden should have been arrested or killed even though he didn't commit any crimes against the US? There are a lot of characters in history like Bin Laden. If only we knew what they were going to become or do. After Bin Laden issued his decree of killing Americans he immediately became a target and the hunt began. That's how the world works, at least that's how it should work. You don't preemptively kill and imprison people because you think they might do something in the future.

If you have credible and substantiated evidence of the intent of an individual then by all means, issue arrest warrants and let the law, our law as well as international law, take its course. No indefinite detention. No secrete court rooms and back door trials. No tossing aside the constitution. Do it right, do it well, do it morally.

You should run for office.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

You should run for office.

I'm an agnostic leaning towards atheism...I'm not electable

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by saden1

I'm an agnostic leaning towards atheism...I'm not electable

Do agnostic->atheists believe in thread hell?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Do agnostic->atheists believe in thread hell?

Hell is just an idea. What you consider hell, someone else might consider heaven. When all is said and done, it is what it is.

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

Originally Posted by saden1

I'm an agnostic leaning towards atheism...I'm not electable

Nope.



lol
Just joking man. peace

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Sammy Baugh Fan

Nope.



lol
Just joking man. peace

You probably wouldn't vote for me and there a lot of people out there who only want people who believe in God, Jesus and the Holey Spirit to hold public office. These same people would rather elect a homosexual than an agnostic/atheist. The possibility of electing a homosexual is highly unlikely of course.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by saden1

If you have credible and substantiated evidence of the intent of an individual then by all means, issue arrest warrants and let the law, our law as well as international law, take its course. No indefinite detention. No secrete court rooms and back door trials. No tossing aside the constitution. Do it right, do it well, do it morally.

You definately make some interesting points. I definately agree that law enforcement actions against individuals caught in the U.S. should be conducted in the same manner as other criminal trials. I don't know, however, whether the war on terrorism against individuals overseas is a law enforcement action. The "war on terrorism" is both a law enforcement action and a war.

Also, the military tribunals are nothing new as FDR did them back in WWII - a much more conventional war. Moreover, they are okay with the Supreme Court (the details may need to be worked out in a new case, but they're generally okay with the High Court).

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

You definately make some interesting points. I definately agree that law enforcement actions against individuals caught in the U.S. should be conducted in the same manner as other criminal trials. I don't know, however, whether the war on terrorism against individuals overseas is a law enforcement action. The "war on terrorism" is both a law enforcement action and a war.

Also, the military tribunals are nothing new as FDR did them back in WWII - a much more conventional war. Moreover, they are okay with the Supreme Court (the details may need to be worked out in a new case, but they're generally okay with the High Court).

Trials of any kind of prisoners of war by the arresting country are prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, including miliary tribunials of the arresting county. Such trials have to be conducted by neutral countries.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Trials of any kind of prisoners of war by the arresting country are prohibited by the Geneva Conventions, including miliary tribunials of the arresting county. Such trials have to be conducted by neutral countries.

"Prisoner of war" is a term of art. POW status is not afforded to unlawful enemy combatants. Once a person is deemed an unlawful enemy combatant, they are denied POW privileges (e.g., the right to a trial by a neutral country). Under U.S. law (which, by the way, governs U.S. court proceedings), the President is delegated the broad authority to determine whether someone captured in Afghanistan or Iraq is an unlawful enemy combatant. Whether you disagree with U.S. law or not, it is what it is and the detention and trial of unlawful enemy combatants captured in Iraq or Afghanistan is not illegal. Air America radio might say otherwise, but they're simply wrong.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

"Prisoner of war" is a term of art. POW status is not afforded to unlawful enemy combatants. Once a person is deemed an unlawful enemy combatant, they are denied POW privileges (e.g., the right to a trial by a neutral country). Under U.S. law (which, by the way, governs U.S. court proceedings), the President is delegated the broad authority to determine whether someone captured in Afghanistan or Iraq is an unlawful enemy combatant. Whether you disagree with U.S. law or not, it is what it is and the detention and trial of unlawful enemy combatants captured in Iraq or Afghanistan is not illegal. Air America radio might say otherwise, but they're simply wrong.

Prisoner of war is not a term of art, but it is a loose term. POW is not so much a status as a classification and matters in a practical sense very little to the Geneva Conventions accept as a general term. Bush's PR has many believing otherwise but the Conventions protect any prisoner of any opposing force of any kind, including all alledged terrorists and insurgents or any people no matter how they are dressed (with the exception of spies, who represent themselves as non-combatants, and can be tried and punished). No government can torture or mistreat any combatants, lawful or so-called unlawful, and that includes using kangaroo courts to sentence prisoners for crimes. To classify a person as a terrorist requires a fair trial, which has stopped Bush thus far from trying Gitmo prisoners (since there is no evidence). The Conventions were meant to stop all torture and mistreatment of prisoners of international war. They do not allow the mistreatment of torture of anyone at all, including terrorists and suspected terrorists.
In relation to international law and agreements, it doesn't matter what laws are created by our government. The U.S. signed the Geneva Conventions and the Geneva Conventions make world leaders,including our leaders, who are sworn by oath of office to uphold international agreements, guilty of war crimes if they allow or institute practices that violate the Conventions. Further, the U.S. has signed other international agreements outlawing torture and mistreatment of prisoners.
Further yet, international agreements, including the Geneva Conventions, do not give the U.S. the right to classify prisoners as it sees fit at any given time. Each agreement does its own classifying. It would be absolutely pointless and absurd for any international agreement to let the various counties that sign the agreements change the definition of torture when they wanted to and at any time classify prisoners as they wished. A minute's thought would tell you that any such absurdity would defeat the whole purpose of the agreements.
Bush and his minions live in an Alice in Wonderland world in which any rediculous argument can be thought of as true by masses of people if it is only repeated enough times on Fox news. Bushies are constantly trying to remake reality.

[Crazyhorse1]

Did I mention that Bush took an oath of office to uphold international agreements signed by the United States. Violation of that oath is an impeachable offense.

As to whether or not Bush can be sentenced by a foreign court for war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, the answer is yes. Even is the United States had not signed the Geneva Conventions, he could still be found guilty of war crimes and sentenced.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Looking back, what was the expectations? That Bin Laden should have been arrested or killed even though he didn't commit any crimes against the US? There are a lot of characters in history like Bin Laden. If only we knew what they were going to become or do. After Bin Laden issued his decree of killing Americans he immediately became a target and the hunt began. That's how the world works, at least that's how it should work. You don't preemptively kill and imprison people because you think they might do something in the future.

If you have credible and substantiated evidence of the intent of an individual then by all means, issue arrest warrants and let the law, our law as well as international law, take its course. No indefinite detention. No secrete court rooms and back door trials. No tossing aside the constitution. Do it right, do it well, do it morally.

He had prior to then declared war against us and we knew that he was forming a terror organization but I guess that was not enough. Thats is also why Sudan kicked him out of their counry and he went to Afganistan
About.com: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by firstdown

He had prior to then declared war against us and we knew that he was forming a terror organization but I guess that was not enough. Thats is also why Sudan kicked him out of their counry and he went to Afganistan
About.com: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

OK, if we are gonna play the "What if" game, then lets say that Clinton does take out OBL. What about the infamous "#2" guy? I mean just because you take out OBL does that mean the "cause" is dead? If George Washington was caught by the red coats, does that mean that the American Revolution "cause" is dead? I am in no way comparing OBL and the father of our country, all I am saying is that if you have a group of people that believe deeply in a "cause" then it will be very difficult to stop it....